Experiment in Exploratory Group Formation within the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
RFC 5111

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss, Yes, Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) Yes

(Chris Newman) Yes

(Dan Romascanu) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2007-10-03 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Section 2., paragraph 5:
>    A Study Group charter MUST NOT include milestones
>    relating to development of a protocol specification.

  I'd like to suggest to add that "an SG MUST NOT produce any standards
  track documents", or maybe even "MUST only produce Informational

Section 3., paragraph 3:
>    Review of Study Group documents will utilize the same tracking tools
>    and process as other IETF documents

  Please say something about PROTO shepherding here, i.e., whether or
  not the ADs responsible for a SG SGs may employ it. (I assume they may.)

(Tim Polk) No Objection

Comment (2007-10-03 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I think the maximum lifetimes for a study group (twelve months, or eighteen months in
exceptional circumstances) are probably too long, but that's okay.  It is an experiment,
after all ...

(Mark Townsley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(David Ward) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) Abstain

(Cullen Jennings) Abstain

Comment (2007-10-11 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
At first I liked this but the more I thought about it, I see it causing confusion around it and I don't see much up side. I don't see what the experiment is or why it is needed. Specifically, I don't understand what this allows that we can't already do today and I don't know how we would decide at the end if a process change like this had made things better or worse. My understanding of the proposed SG was that an AD could charter one right now as a WG that needed to re-charter before working on any protocol documents. We have done things very similar to this in the past.  I do see problems where one AD says Yes to SG to not have to suffer the pain of saying No and in the process makes life much harder for their successors that needs to say no to a WG after a SG completes.

Magnus Westerlund (was Discuss) Abstain

Comment (2007-10-17)
No email
send info
After having reviewed the discussion around this. I am questioning the benefit of this experiment. That coupled to the risks with confusion and being stranded with things we don't want makes me wanna say no to this.