[06:54:52] --- Simon Josefsson has joined
[09:13:14] --- leslie@ecotroph.net has joined
[09:49:18] --- psavola has joined
[09:56:06] --- leslie@ecotroph.net has left: Logged out
[10:00:24] --- jlcjohn has joined
[10:01:07] --- inet6num@jabber.org has joined
[10:07:06] --- Barry Leiba has joined
[10:07:27] --- hta has joined
[10:07:31] --- becarpenter has joined
[10:07:53] --- yjs has joined
[10:07:55] <becarpenter> Leslie starts intro
[10:08:07] --- olaf@jabber.secret-wg.org has joined
[10:08:15] <becarpenter> Slides are up at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/techspec-0.pdf
[10:08:30] --- klensin has joined
[10:08:57] <becarpenter> Simon, do you have audio?
[10:09:55] <becarpenter> Draft is draft-mankin-pub-req-05.txt
[10:10:00] <becarpenter> We are on slide 3
[10:10:27] <becarpenter> slide 4
[10:10:48] <becarpenter> actually slide 5
[10:10:59] --- robsiemb has joined
[10:12:37] --- resnick has joined
[10:13:33] <becarpenter> slide 6
[10:13:47] --- rpelletier has joined
[10:13:48] --- yjs has left: Lost connection
[10:14:21] <becarpenter> Moving to discuss the draft
[10:14:59] <becarpenter> Stephen Hayes speaking
[10:15:35] <becarpenter> slides at http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/techspec-1.pdf
[10:15:57] <becarpenter> slide 2, scope
[10:16:59] --- leslie@ecotroph.net has joined
[10:17:19] <becarpenter> slide 3, draft structure
[10:17:37] <becarpenter> Major restructuring since version 1
[10:18:44] <becarpenter> slide 4, task list
[10:20:57] --- yjs has joined
[10:21:53] <becarpenter> slide 5
[10:23:39] <becarpenter> Allison; should maybe add something about desirable throughput goals
[10:25:08] <becarpenter> Eric Rescorla: don't overspecify performance goals in an RFC!
[10:25:38] <becarpenter> Leslie: need is to identify the class of metrics to be covered in the RFP
[10:27:30] <becarpenter> Aaron: can't specify goals without also specifying load
[10:28:00] <becarpenter> Thomas Narten: agrees with EKR
[10:30:21] <becarpenter> Stephen Hayes: intended as guidance only, expect final SLA to be different
[10:34:48] <hta> this discussion reinforces my feeling that the IPR WG's document on outgoing rights HAS to be "advice", not "instructions". That's far more complicated than this, and people are saying "don't make binding requirements on the IAD" here.
[10:36:47] <becarpenter> I agree
[10:37:41] <klensin> Harald: yes. We need principles and maybe some suggestions in these documents, then to let the IESG or IAOC/IAD as appropriate, sort out, and re-sort, the details. But we do need mechanisms to hold the IESG, IAOC, and IAD accountable for that sorting-out process, not just mechanisms for them to hold the tech publisher responsible.
[10:38:01] --- yjs has left: Lost connection
[10:39:39] --- amarine has joined
[10:43:19] <leslie@ecotroph.net> john, harald -- I agree
[10:45:53] <becarpenter> for anyone not hearing audio: continued microphone line on whether or not to specify metrics in RFC
[10:49:04] <rpelletier> 357 docs were submitted to the RFC Editor averaging 30 pages
[10:49:14] <rpelletier> for 2005
[10:49:51] <rpelletier> the vendor would need to know aan expected workload to bid on and what we are looking for for processing times.
[10:50:12] <klensin> Ray, is that the count of "submitted by the IETF", "submitted by the IETF+IAB+IRTF", or "submitted, total"??
[10:50:57] <hta> one year ago, there was a backlog of 200-300 documents in the IESG. If the IESG manages to increase its efficiency, the output from the IESG to the RFC Editor could be substantially higher than the IETF WG process output for a while. Just a warning that you need some headroom over the steady-state situation.....
[10:51:41] <rpelletier> John, garnered from http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue-stats/
[10:52:05] <klensin> Unless this document is a back-door approach to squeezing out the independent submissions (which we have been repeatedly told it isn't) then these, and other, workload numbers need to reflect the whole picture.
[10:52:06] <becarpenter> Leslie is trying to get to the next slide...
[10:52:10] <becarpenter> But failings
[10:52:36] <rpelletier> Yes, we can see the backlog at the Editor, but if there is a backlog in the IESG, then we would need to predict a year's workload
[10:52:43] <becarpenter> We're on slide 5 out of 6
[10:52:47] --- anabolism@jabber.org has joined
[10:54:56] <becarpenter> Therefore, the metrics section is an automatic rathole
[10:54:56] <rpelletier> the Independent backlog is 38 docs as of 3/20
[10:55:25] <becarpenter> slide 6 at last!
[10:56:07] <leslie@ecotroph.net> the rathole guard is now on duty
[10:57:45] <becarpenter> slide 7
[10:59:13] <rpelletier> This is what is in our copy editor contract which was reviewed by the Editor before executing
[10:59:17] <rpelletier> The copy editor will ensure that written materials conform to the standards of The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition; Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition; and Fowler’s Modern English Usage, second edition, revised. The copy editor will also apply any standards of house style determined by the RFC Editor.
[11:00:52] <becarpenter> Ray,that still leaves a lot of wiggle room about that which is edited and that which is not.
[11:03:22] <klensin> Ray, first, Chicago and Fowler conflict in several respects so, if you have written that, it is nonsense unless you listed a priority. Second, if that is what you specified, it is a key part of several recent problems that have been unfairly blamed on the RFC Editor. The tradition is that things are not changed that are correct; the recent tendency is that wholesale editing is done on the basis of taste and, in the process, nasty inadvertent technical changes are made
[11:05:34] --- falk has joined
[11:05:35] --- narten has joined
[11:05:53] <rpelletier> The style specs did not originate with the IAD
[11:06:26] --- mankin has joined
[11:06:43] --- henrik@levkowetz.com has joined
[11:08:33] <resnick> I think I agree with John, but have a different cut: The size and detail of a style guide should be directly proportional to how much fixing we expect the editor to do.
[11:08:36] --- tonyhansen has joined
[11:09:11] <resnick> I think this is what Paul is saying.
[11:10:02] <mankin> could you take a sense of the room about style guide? I've had a fair number of authors appreciate when they dealt with a skilled editor experience - light but consistent. (Not what they got every time). Also agree having it known ahead as in a journal is what those who thought about it considered one value to add
[11:10:53] <anabolism@jabber.org> I have always appreciated the RFC Editor's help and have been generally pleased with their stylistic edits.
[11:11:09] --- hardie@qualcomm.com has joined
[11:11:20] <anabolism@jabber.org> When I have disagreed I explained why the style change had technical implications
[11:11:58] <becarpenter> http://tinyurl.com/ohkof
[11:12:58] <klensin> Ray, it doesn't make any different where it came from. If a rule like that was written, and the current editing excesses are the result of that rule, then there has been a failure somewhere in the review process that goes into such a specification. I leave it to you and the IAOC to figure out where that failure was and how to fix it.
[11:14:36] <becarpenter> This is great. Nobody really wanted to discuss formats in plenary; I'm sooo happy it's come up here ;-)
[11:15:10] * resnick coughs up a hairball
[11:15:12] <tonyhansen> there are times when the rfc editor has made a change to my docs that caused a tech diff, and times when it did not. As long as they are willing to change any text back to what *I* want, I'm fairly happy.
[11:15:58] <becarpenter> Tony, there is always a risk of missing a change of that matters at AUTH48, if there are many diffs
[11:15:59] <falk> tony: the goal is always comprehension and technical correctness
[11:16:07] <rpelletier> The markedup paper output of the copy editor was then sent to an editor who then decided which changes to apply
[11:16:10] <klensin> Suggestion about the xml2rfc question (I'm not going to the mike)... Anything we say about input formats needs to make clear that format is also to be used in publisher responses to authors, not just as "throw over the wall" input. And _that_ is a principle, not the "which formats" question
[11:17:00] <becarpenter> moving to open issue 3
[11:17:07] <rpelletier> What we need to require is a specific outout requirement, but we will have to tell them what inputs they will have to process
[11:18:58] <becarpenter> issue 4
[11:20:29] <klensin> Tony, as an example of the distinction that I, and I think Paul, is trying to make, assume that an editor goes through a document changing one consistent and correct style of using commas to another consistent and correct style of using commas. This can produce hundred of changes. If one of them is gotten wrong, the odds of its being caught by even careful end-stage author checking are about zero due to the "ok, my eyes glaze over" effect (see RFC 3933 for a painful example).
[11:23:50] <hta> I worry about editing because "common sense isn't common". In a recent diff, I discovered that the RFC Editor had changed the casing of text quoted from other documents FROM what was in the I-D (and was correctly copied from the original documents) TO something that fit better with their style. When confronted, they defended that choice as correct. This edit did not conform to my idea of "common sense", and underscores the fact that depending on "common sense" to figure out how to edit a document is problematic.
[11:24:22] <klensin> Ray, no. The actual process is an iterative one. For technical documents that is inevitable, but even publishers of novels generate galley proofs. If what the author gets back from the editor/publisher is different from the form that went in, we get serious inefficiencies at best --inefficiencies that are borne by the volunteer authors/ editors/ WGs. The problem is amplifed by the fact that we often need to revise/update/replace RFCs -- if the author's "input" working copy does not match what is published as the RFC, it introduces both extra work and huge potential for error.
[11:26:38] --- lynn@jabber.psg.com has joined
[11:26:51] --- pk has joined
[11:28:38] <rpelletier> John,'
[11:29:34] <rpelletier> John, don't disagree - the vendor will staff to handle what we say the input is
[11:29:57] <falk> sorry, john isn't here right now. leave a message and he'll get back to you....
[11:33:37] <klensin> The vendor won't feed the revisions back to the authors in the input format unless we insist on that -- it is easier for them to not do so.
[11:36:23] <becarpenter> Observation: we can place a requirement on the publisher but never actually ask them to exercise it.
[11:37:15] --- inet6num@jabber.org has left
[11:40:40] <becarpenter> issue 5
[11:42:39] --- doug_trendmicro@jabber.org has joined
[11:45:04] <becarpenter> issue 6
[11:49:15] <leslie@ecotroph.net> now we are at open issues
[11:49:21] <leslie@ecotroph.net> open open issues ;-)
[11:56:19] --- yjs has joined
[11:56:30] <hta> rescinded open issues?
[11:56:51] <hta> what is the difference beween a closed open issue and an unopened open issue????
[11:58:51] <amarine> some folks are actually trying to follow what's going on by reading jabber...any typing appreciated...
[12:00:01] <resnick> We are having a lovely discussion on whether we have to write down that we want documents to be rescindable.
[12:00:19] <hta> we're discussing (?) the porcess of deciding that we did not want to publish a document even though we've already done so (rescinding publication), and taking down stuff from webservers because of a DMCA challenge (which is NOT unpublishing).
[12:00:25] <klensin> And an equally lovely discussion about how to un-write what has been written.
[12:00:49] <amarine> hm, maybe I *don't* want to follow that closely ok, maybe I didn't want to follow that closely after all :)
[12:01:00] <resnick> In other words, the reason nobody is typing is because noone can stomach typing it. :)
[12:01:05] <amarine> gotcha
[12:01:08] <amarine> sorry i asked
[12:01:31] <hta> welcome to the admin side of the IETF ;-)
[12:02:45] --- rpelletier has left
[12:02:46] --- Barry Leiba has left
[12:02:56] --- pk has left
[12:03:10] --- leslie@ecotroph.net has left: Logged out
[12:03:16] --- falk has left
[12:03:25] --- resnick has left
[12:03:56] --- olaf@jabber.secret-wg.org has left: Logged out
[12:05:27] --- lynn@jabber.psg.com has left: Logged out
[12:05:57] --- mankin has left
[12:08:24] --- yjs has left: Lost connection
[12:09:38] --- anabolism@jabber.org has left
[12:10:50] --- henrik@levkowetz.com has left: Disconnected
[12:12:25] --- hta has left
[12:13:52] --- amarine has left
[12:13:59] --- Simon Josefsson has left
[12:16:04] --- hta has joined
[12:19:26] --- hardie@qualcomm.com has left
[12:24:14] --- doug_trendmicro@jabber.org has left: Logged out
[12:24:49] --- psavola has left
[12:25:40] --- hta has left
[12:27:49] --- hta has joined
[12:32:54] --- becarpenter has left
[12:33:18] --- klensin has left
[12:37:05] --- narten has left
[12:39:42] --- hta has left
[12:46:28] --- tonyhansen has left
[12:47:38] --- hta has joined
[12:57:43] --- hta has left
[13:25:43] --- robsiemb has left
[14:04:33] --- becarpenter has joined
[14:06:39] --- becarpenter has left