Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
My intention was to say that the IAOC sets the rules as soon as it gets around to it, and certainly before any expense is covered - even if the rule is as simple as no payment, ever, it should be set. So I also prefer Mike's wording to mine. (Another thing - I have recommended to the transition team that they try to keep notes on this sort of thing and write them into a prototype IASA rulebook. if I were looking at this process from the outside and cared, I'd have greater belief that the rule would actually get written if I saw draft text) --On 7. januar 2005 12:39 -0500 John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On Friday, 07 January, 2005 12:00 -0500 Michael StJohns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *bleah* Generally its better to have rules *before* the exceptional events occur. The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. Personally I like that better. Much better. I even agree about the *bleah* part. I was just trying to reflect the position on which Harald believes consensus had been attained, i.e., I was trying to improve the language without changing what seemed to be the intent -- both the original language and Harald's proposed new sentence would have left things in a state in which the IAOC would probably first encounter the problem, then start making rules. If the effect of that language change is to identify a problem with the intent and to get it fixed, I think that is great. john At 11:32 AM 1/7/2005, John C Klensin wrote: --On Friday, 07 January, 2005 16:56 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this line of thought has died down without any great disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following sentence: The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their services as members of the IAOC. belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the end of 4.0 makes for the most reasonable placement (together with all the stuff about membership selection). (Personally, I'm not fond of the word exceptional. It begs the question of who grants exceptions, and what the criteria for exceptions are. But the debaters seem to favour it. I'd rather say possible, and add IAOC sets and publishes rules for reimbursement of expenses, if that ever becomes necessary. But I can live with the current text). Harald, At the risk of more on-list wordsmithing, and being sympathetic to your preference above, would changing the proposed sentence to read The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their services as members of the IAOC. Should exceptional circumstances justify reimbursement of expenses, the IAOC will set and publish rules for those cases. help sort this out? While trying to make fine distinctions by the choice of words in a sentence is a disease to which I'm probably a lot more prone than average, this proto-BCP seems like the wrong place to do it. The form proposed earlier and repeated in your message not only causes the potential for a debate about exceptional but also for a debate about what it really means to include expenses as a service that is being performed. On the theory that clarity is a good thing if it can be done easily, let's tie the prohibited compensation to services only and then state that expense reimbursement is an exceptional case and that the IAOC gets to figure out what is exceptional and what the rules are. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
V2 Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
I still see no real disagreement in content on the question of reimbursement, but the point has been made that the IAOC needs to set those rules in advance of the question being raised, so I'll switch to proposing that we adopt the text by (at last count) John Klensin and Mike St. Johns at the end of section 4.0: - The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their services as members of the IAOC. The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses, and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. I think this captures the intent of *all* the posters so far. End of thread? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike. So that is: t The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. /t at the end of section 4, so just before section 4.1 Bert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 08:55 To: John C Klensin; Michael StJohns; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members My intention was to say that the IAOC sets the rules as soon as it gets around to it, and certainly before any expense is covered - even if the rule is as simple as no payment, ever, it should be set. So I also prefer Mike's wording to mine. Bert ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
--On 7. januar 2005 13:43 -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that we are talking about an individual submission, two points from your list are curious: 1. The last point is at least confusing, since the submission comes *after* the work has been done; otherwise it would be a working group effort; so I do not know what additional work you are envisioning. Generally, someone who sees a problem and considers writing a draft to address it will at least briefly wonder whether a working group should be chartered for it or not. I was not talking about only the stuff that happens around Last Call time. 2. Since there is no track record for the work -- given that it has not been done in an IETF working group -- then what is the basis for assessing its community support, absent Last Call comments? How are either of these assessed for an individual submission, if not by requiring a Last Call to elicit substantial and serious commentary of support? Following the IETF's tradition of personal responsibility, the AD is responsible for having ascertained that there is reasonable reason to believe that there are good reasons to think that the document should be published before issuing the Last Call. How that is done varies. (for instance, in the case of the updated WHOIS specification, there were about five people who were groaning about the stupidity of having an IETF standards-track specification that people read as if it said that WHOIS records have to include a phone number - then Leslie said OK, I'll draft it, and all of the people on the chain of approval were aware of the issues that the draft was trying to address, and thought that it was obviously a good idea to address them. The relative lack of Last Call comments was then interpreted as the community seems to have found no fault with our judgment that this makes sense to do. And I think that was the right outcome for that particular case.) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, stability, and extensions
Dave Crocker wrote: And, indeed, I haven't seen much support for the document under discussion. I find statements such as this mind-boggling. Please explain what you mean by much support. There have been at least as many individuals writing mails in favour of the document as against it. Furthermore, it has been made clear that the individuals writing the document and supporting it represent *very* large communities. -- Misha Wolf Standards Manager Chief Architecture Office Reuters -- -- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: V2 Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
Harald suggets: so I'll switch to proposing that we adopt the text by (at last count) John Klensin and Mike St. Johns at the end of section 4.0: - The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their services as members of the IAOC. The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses, and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. I think this captures the intent of *all* the posters so far. End of thread? works for me Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: V2 Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
OK, I have use this text (as 2 paragraphs) from Haralds email below Bert -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Harald Tveit Alvestrand Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:41 To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: V2 Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members I still see no real disagreement in content on the question of reimbursement, but the point has been made that the IAOC needs to set those rules in advance of the question being raised, so I'll switch to proposing that we adopt the text by (at last count) John Klensin and Mike St. Johns at the end of section 4.0: - The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their services as members of the IAOC. The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses, and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. I think this captures the intent of *all* the posters so far. End of thread? Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
On 1/10/2005 06:12, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote: OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike. So that is: t The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. /t at the end of section 4, so just before section 4.1 Bert If this is still open to nits ... I don't think you want generally. It doesn't go with exceptional. Isn't reimbursement *always* for exceptional cases only? If it's exceptionally for common cases, would those not also be exceptional? :-) I suggest eliminating generally. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
IASA Finances - an attempt at some uplevelling
We have had a number of issues that circle around the financial model for the IASA. Some of these have been fairly nitpick-level, others have been more matters of principle, others are really hard to tell. In order to get the discussion to a place where we can reach some conclusions, it might be worthwhile to try to take the discussion to a bit higher level. The IASA model of finances, as presented in the BCP, is this one: Money comes from a number of places, which can be grouped roughly as: A - Money from meeting fees B - Money from designated donations C - Money from ISOC funds D - Money left in IASA account at end of previous year Similarly, the money goes to just a few places X - Money spent in support of the IETF Y - Money left by the end of the year (positive balance) By the end of the year, A + B + C + D = X + Y (by the theory of accounts) At the beginning of the year, we have a budget that estimates each of those - set by the IASA to cover the IETF's needs, approved and committed to by ISOC. At the moment, the assumption is X A + B, A+B+C = X, Y=0 (we are not budgeting for fund-building in IASA, and we need support from ISOC income not specifically earmarked for the IASA). This is accounted for using divisional accounting, which has nothing to do with which bank accounts the cash balance is kept in. It's all books. We all agree that money coming in as A and B and not spent on X is kept on an IASA account. So we have agreed that IASA can carry a positive balance - we do not require that Y is zero. Disagreements surfacing as tickets: - #737: How should donations be designated for IETF (that is, marked as B rather than C)? Currently, only Platinum sponsors' yearly dues may be marked in the B category; the BCP mentions the possibility of having other types of donation (smaller sums, non-yearly sums) designated as such. - #748: At what times of the year is the C money put on the books? Alternatives are: - At budgeting/beginning of year - On a regular schedule - As bills are paid - At the end of the year This really only affects two things: The numbers in the monthly report and the possibility of reducing C during the year. Money DOES NOT MOVE between real physical accounts because of this. - Also #748: How are budget changes during the year handled? Who approves them, and how do changes in X affect changes to C? If X goes up, C goes up. If X goes down, or A and B go up - is C changed (making more money available to ISOC's other activities), or does C stay unchanged (accumulating money that comes in from C in the IASA account)? - #722: What happens (in particular, what happens to C) if we split? - #740: When ISOC holds reserves in case of emergency (outside of the group D money above), how is that shown in the reports on the IASA? - #732: Raising money costs money. Are those costs skimmed off before money arrives from ISOC (reduction in C) and/or charged against designated donations (reducing B), or carried as an extra expense item? - #721: How do we describe the fact that IASA can request audits, and say what it wants to audit for? - #745, 749, 750: How much detail should the BCP give on the sync/discussion between IASA budgeting and ISOC budgeting? So far, it's mainly a summary of what's in the BCP now. So let's see if it's possible to extract some more / clearer information at the principles level what follows is my personal thoughts about what these principles are, and how we need the BCP to reflect them. Reserves Stepping back a bit, I think there are two kinds of reserves we need to consider: - The money (let's call this the backstop) that allow us to operate for a while if there is an unexpected shortfall of income. The reason for having that reserve is prudent contingency planning, and the BCP says that this financial capacity is provided by ISOC, by whatever means that ISOC wishes to provide it. - The funds that consist of money earmarked for IETF work, but not yet spent (let's call this the balance). The reason for the existence of these is a question of fairness and proper accounting, not planning - when money is given to support the IETF, it needs to be clearly shown that it is retained for that purpose only. The balance may form part of the backstop, but not the other way around - if ISOC provides a reserve out of non-designated money, using the ISOC line of credit or by other means, that money still isn't designated for IETF use in the absence of a crisis. In the case of a split (should that ever be a reasonable thing to do), it's reasonably clear that the balance stays with the IETF-controlled entity, while what to do about the backstop reserve will depend on a number of factors, and certainly we can't describe all of them in this document. I think that's what the document currently says. But I may have read it too many times some changes to make it even clearer suggested later. Separable income
Re: IASA Finances - an attempt at some uplevelling
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The IASA model of finances, as presented in the BCP, is this one: Money comes from a number of places, which can be grouped roughly as: (snip) Similarly, the money goes to just a few places X - Money spent in support of the IETF Y - Money left by the end of the year (positive balance) (snip) By the end of the year, A + B + C + D = X + Y (by the theory of accounts) At the beginning of the year, we have a budget that estimates each of (snip) All this makes sense. Reserves Stepping back a bit, I think there are two kinds of reserves we need to consider: - The money (let's call this the backstop) that allow us to operate for a while if there is an unexpected shortfall of income. The reason for having that reserve is prudent contingency planning, and the BCP says that this financial capacity is provided by ISOC, by whatever means that ISOC wishes to provide it. - The funds that consist of money earmarked for IETF work, but not yet spent (let's call this the balance). The reason for the existence of these is a question of fairness and proper accounting, not planning - when money is given to support the IETF, it needs to be clearly shown that it is retained for that purpose only. The balance may form part of the backstop, but not the other way around - if ISOC provides a reserve out of non-designated money, using the ISOC line of credit or by other means, that money still isn't designated for IETF use in the absence of a crisis. Right. In the case of a split (should that ever be a reasonable thing to do), it's reasonably clear that the balance stays with the IETF-controlled entity, while what to do about the backstop reserve will depend on a number of factors, and certainly we can't describe all of them in this document. If the document already says that the backstop is provided by the ISOC, is there any case where it would NOT be left also at the ISOC in case of a split? This seems simple to me but maybe I missed something... Separable income It's a relatively consistent message from the IETF community throughout the IASA discussions that if people want to give money to support the IETF, then they should be able to do so - and see that this happens. There have been no requests for designating the funds more specifically than that. This is a transparency issue, not a way to increase or decrease overall numbers. We have had the request from the community, and we need to answer it. I agree. Where cost of fundraising is concerned - I think it's simplest in terms of showing people where the money goes if the cost of fundraising for the IETF is charged to the IASA, and a portion of the cost of fundraising for ISOC in general is charged to the IASA. But the important factor, the one that should get into the BCP, is that the cost of fundraising is reported. Yes. Budgeting process - I thnk we must allow ourselves to learn to walk here - the IASA and the rest of ISOC need to be allowed to work out these procedures together. The absolute requirement should be on the openness of the process - that the IETF community is able to see and understand who makes the decisions, at what time, and who's responsible for approving or changing them. In that spirit, I think the best way forward on the tickets that deal with this process may be to say less, not more - give the freedom to work this out in a way that works in practice. I agree. Specific suggestion for text changes Reserves Section 2.2 bullet 7, current: 8. The IASA shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent planning, and ISOC shall work with the IASA to build up and maintain the reserve. Under the principle of state principles, not mechanisms, change to: 8. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient reserves exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of unexpected events such as income shortfalls. Ok. All other details should be in section 5.6. In section 5.6, change: Rather than having the IASA attempt to build that reserve in its separate accounts, the IASA looks to ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate: line of credit, financial reserves, meeting cancellation insurance, and so forth. Such reserves do not appear instantaneously; the goal is to reach this level of reserves within 3 years after the creation of the IASA. Such funds shall be held in reserve for use by IASA for use in the event of IETF meeting cancellation or other unexpected fiscal emergencies. These reserves shall only be spent on IETF support functions. to: The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate: line of credit, financial reserves,
Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, stability, and extensions
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:33:54 GMT, Misha Wolf said: I find statements such as this mind-boggling. Please explain what you mean by much support. There have been at least as many individuals writing mails in favour of the document as against it. Furthermore, it has been made clear that the individuals writing the document and supporting it represent *very* large communities. Support is there. Consensus, however, is quite lacking on this one. pgpCBTZi9YDml.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:43:32 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: s much as we might like the handy default yes/default no terminology, the reality is that individual submissions for the standards track have varying levels of support and interest when they reach the point of IETF Last Call. Defaulting all proposals to no that have no working group behind them collapses that too far, in my personal opinion. If one believes that the IETF has no problem with publishing useless, wasteful specifications and no problem with excessive concentration of authority and responsibility in the IESG, then by all means, the model you, Harald and Sam espouse should remain. Unfortunately, the IETF community has repeatedly, and even formally, expressed concern about both of these issues, so I was merely noting a pretty straightforward means of dealing with both of them, in regards individual submissions seeking IETF approval. Rather than be mystical assessors of vague sources of support, the IESG needs to make major decisions more transparent. With respect to approval of IETF documents, that is one of the reasons for Last Call. And as I noted, it used to be used for that quite pointedly. The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be demonstrated ON THE RECORD. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA Finances - an attempt at some uplevelling
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 16:31 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Any IASA account balance, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the new entity. Other terms of removal shall be negotiated between the non-ISOC members of the IAOC and ISOC. (the last point is an afterthought. It seems strange to have ISOC members negotiating with ISOC in the case of a separation. While I don't expect to have to use that paragraph, many have argued that it's better to get it written properly while we're starting than to wait until we need it.) Harald, I may have other thoughts on your other suggestions as I think more about them, but this strikes me as just wrong. There are many people who are members of ISOC who are members because it seems like the Right Think to Do, with or without the former $35 fee. Many people became members by virtue of attending one conference or another, and are still on the rolls since the membership fee was eliminated and everyone was carried forward. Unless you want to make non-ISOC-membership a criterion for anyone on the IAOC who is not appointed by ISOC --which I think would be a very serious case of shooting ourselves in the foot-- you run the risk of every IAOC member being also an ISOC member, leaving no one to negotiate or, worse, leaving only one or two people to represent all IETF interests. In addition, because this might discourage IETF participants from becoming ISOC members, there is a case to be made that the ISOC Board could not approve this without violating their duties to ISOC. It would be reasonable to exclude any person who has a position of authority or responsibility within ISOC's structure from participating on both sides of a negotiation (or negotiating for the IETF if you want to force them to the other side), excluding any ISOC member feels to me like it is both excessive and dumb. I'd look to Lynn or Fred for an acceptable way to state position or authority or responsibility in the ISOC context. I don't know what would work and be stable as they evolve their management and volunteer structures. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA Finances - an attempt at some uplevelling
Specific suggestion for text changes from harald Reserves Section 2.2 bullet 7, current: 8. The IASA shall establish a target for a reserve fund to cover normal operating expenses and meeting expenses in accordance with prudent planning, and ISOC shall work with the IASA to build up and maintain the reserve. Under the principle of state principles, not mechanisms, change to: 8. The IASA, in cooperation with ISOC, shall ensure that sufficient reserves exist to keep the IETF operational in the case of unexpected events such as income shortfalls. looks good to me All other details should be in section 5.6. In section 5.6, change: Rather than having the IASA attempt to build that reserve in its separate accounts, the IASA looks to ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate: line of credit, financial reserves, meeting cancellation insurance, and so forth. Such reserves do not appear instantaneously; the goal is to reach this level of reserves within 3 years after the creation of the IASA. Such funds shall be held in reserve for use by IASA for use in the event of IETF meeting cancellation or other unexpected fiscal emergencies. These reserves shall only be spent on IETF support functions. to: The IASA expects ISOC to build and provide that operational reserve, through whatever mechanisms ISOC deems appropriate: line of credit, financial reserves, meeting cancellation insurance, and so forth. Long term, financial reserves are preferred; it should be a goal for ISOC to reach this level of reserves within 3 years after the creation of the IASA. If the IASA account accumulates a surplus, ISOC may count that as part of the reserve. also OK by me modulo changing account to accounts in the last sentence IASA accounts - In section 7 (Removability), change: Any accrued funds, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the new entity. to Any IASA account balance, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the new entity. Other terms of removal shall be negotiated between the non-ISOC members of the IAOC and ISOC. I agree with John's concern maybe fix by saying non ISOC-appointed members Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Hi. In the hope of making part of this discussion concrete and moving it a step forward, rather than (or in addition to) debates about philosophy, let me make two suggestions: (1) Last Calls for independent submission and similar standards-track (and BCP) documents should include, explicitly, (i) An indication that it is not a WG submission. (ii) An explicit request for comments on whether the material is appropriate for IETF standardization (independent of the correctness/ appropriateness of its technical content), as well as (iii) The usual request for comment on technical content. (2) Any explanations of why the document is relevant, what problems it solves, what individuals or groups are and are not supporting it, etc., that might help the community reach a conclusion about the second point above should be either part of the document itself or part of a supplemental informational document that is included in the Last Call. These suggestions are independent of discussions about defaults, etc., and would, I think, be helpful for all non-WG submissions, even though they will obviously be more important for some than for others. And, since the IESG decides what is Last Called and what is not, and about the content of Last Call announcements, I think it is something you can just do if you or the community think it would be helpful. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote: The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be demonstrated ON THE RECORD. d/ And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records. When we have a mailing list like ietf-types or ietf-languages where there is a long term community of interest around a specific issue, should a discussion there be taken into account when assessing an individual submission? I think the answer is it depends and certainly may be yes. It should not over-ride other discussion or be given extraordinary weight, but I do think that the evidence there of interest, support, and consideration of issues raised should be taken into account. That's why I believe saying default yes or default no at Last Call is too black and white. I suggest that we try to include pointers to these discussions in the Last Call text, so that the community has the transparency it needs to assess these previous discussions. That will require a change in behavior, though, as I've been told by several senior folk that they don't read the Last Call additional text at all if the draft name alone convinces them they need to read the document; this was in the context of the considerable additional explanatory text included with the langtags New Last Call. Other suggestions on how to highlight this to the community reviewing a document at Last Call are more than welcome. regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA Finances - an attempt at some uplevelling
John, I believe Harald meant ISOC-appointed members of the IAOC, and not folks on the IAOC who happen to be ISOC members. (Hopefully, everyone on the IAOC will be an ISOC member...). That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the proposal. I don't want to belabour it, because I don't want to give particular importance to something that is intended to be an edge case. I would suggest that the right way to handle it is, either: . to note that this will be rife with potential for conflict of interest, and that IAOC members appointed (or ex officio) by ISOC are expected to recuse themselves from discussion of separation issues (this should amount to what Harald has said, but phrases it in terms of more normal operating procedures); or . define a new committee, that is not the IAOC, but the IETF-specific subset (+ others, as necessary). Leslie. John C Klensin wrote: --On Monday, 10 January, 2005 16:31 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Any IASA account balance, any IETF-specific intellectual property rights, and any IETF-specific data and tools shall also transition to the new entity. Other terms of removal shall be negotiated between the non-ISOC members of the IAOC and ISOC. (the last point is an afterthought. It seems strange to have ISOC members negotiating with ISOC in the case of a separation. While I don't expect to have to use that paragraph, many have argued that it's better to get it written properly while we're starting than to wait until we need it.) Harald, I may have other thoughts on your other suggestions as I think more about them, but this strikes me as just wrong. There are many people who are members of ISOC who are members because it seems like the Right Think to Do, with or without the former $35 fee. Many people became members by virtue of attending one conference or another, and are still on the rolls since the membership fee was eliminated and everyone was carried forward. Unless you want to make non-ISOC-membership a criterion for anyone on the IAOC who is not appointed by ISOC --which I think would be a very serious case of shooting ourselves in the foot-- you run the risk of every IAOC member being also an ISOC member, leaving no one to negotiate or, worse, leaving only one or two people to represent all IETF interests. In addition, because this might discourage IETF participants from becoming ISOC members, there is a case to be made that the ISOC Board could not approve this without violating their duties to ISOC. It would be reasonable to exclude any person who has a position of authority or responsibility within ISOC's structure from participating on both sides of a negotiation (or negotiating for the IETF if you want to force them to the other side), excluding any ISOC member feels to me like it is both excessive and dumb. I'd look to Lynn or Fred for an acceptable way to state position or authority or responsibility in the ISOC context. I don't know what would work and be stable as they evolve their management and volunteer structures. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA Finances - an attempt at some uplevelling
Apologies for the bad parse. When I said non-ISOC member, I intended to say the members of IAOC who are not representing ISOC, not not a member of ISOC. Having the ISOC President have a formal role in representing the IETF when discussing how to dissolve the relationship between ISOC and the IETF doesn't sound right. The ISOC-appointed representative is less obvious to me - the BCP says that he/she does not represent ISOC. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
Hmm... No, actually I think this is right. This is guidance to the IAOC for publishing the rules not the rules themselves. In general, the rules should only cover exceptional expenses (e.g. spent $1000 paying the teleconference bill for xxx), but the IAOC can also establish rules for non-exceptional expenses (e.g. mileage for meetings) because its the only way they can get people to come to do something for example. At 09:12 AM 1/10/2005, Scott W Brim wrote: On 1/10/2005 06:12, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote: OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike. So that is: t The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. /t at the end of section 4, so just before section 4.1 Bert If this is still open to nits ... I don't think you want generally. It doesn't go with exceptional. Isn't reimbursement *always* for exceptional cases only? If it's exceptionally for common cases, would those not also be exceptional? :-) I suggest eliminating generally. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
From: Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records. When we have a mailing list like ietf-types or ietf-languages where there is a long term community of interest around a specific issue, should a discussion there be taken into account when assessing an individual submission? I think the answer is it depends and certainly may be yes. It should not over-ride ... I'm bothered by the talk of community of interest and support as if they were fungible, as if every community of interest is the same as the IETF. That is a potentially catastrophic slippery slope. There are very good reasons for IEEE PARs. Turf is the most fought over commodity of standards organizations. Turf is more highly valued than any single document. Letting random groups of people call themselves communities and so automagically give themselves the IETF imprimatur is a very bad thing. Whether the random group has a mailing list that includes the string ietf in its private part should be obviously irrelevant, but judging from recent cases, isn't. Whether the group's mailing list happens to use an ietf.org domain name is close to irrelevant. Whether the supposed community includes leaders of other standards organizations should also obviously be irrelevant, but evidently isn't. Instead of a default no for BCPs or standards track RFC from individual submissions, it would be better to make it a simple no. If the IETF does not feel like investing the substantial effort and delays to form a WG and the rest of the tiresome, formal IETF dance, then that in itself is proof that the issue is unworthy of the IETF's official seal. Previous efforts to borrow the IETF's printing press and official seal have involved Informational. Evidently the many forces that want to borrow the IETF's seal have figured out that Informational is not valuable enough and are trying a new tactic. Giving BCP or standards track to individual submissions is evil on more than one front. It's not just that it risks blessing non-standards and deluting the value of BCP and the standards track. It is evidence that the IETF as an organization is getting lazy about its real work. If every I-D were worth publishing, there would never have been a need for WGs, Last Calls, and the rest. The whole community consensus thing is absolutely required for anything that deserves the word standard. You can't have a worthwhile standards publisher without the work of editing. Other standards bodies use voting. Book publishers use editors. The IETF uses consensus. Letting the editors off the hook for jobs will have results as bad in their own way as results we saw from letting the directors of Enron and MCI sleep on their jobs. The IESG, IAB, and ADs are not the IETF and do not define the IETF consensus. They might gauge it, but if it does not exist outside them, then it does not exist. It is definitely not good that the IETF is spending so much time writing a job description and paying so little attention to ostensibly important Internet standards like language tags. It's not only true that A [standards committee's] gotta know [its] limitations, but it must also know what it doesn't care about enough to work on. If the IETF doesn't want to work on language tags by having a WG and the rest of those delays and work, then so be it. Let the standards body that evidently does care do it...unless the incredible I'm gona tell the Liason on you threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing as usual that it sounded like. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
M My take is that by the time we get to last call, we may be trying to do - are IMHO in the case of the I-D that kicked this off - things that were better done earlier. I can track I-Ds courtesy of the IETF mauling list (whoops Freudian slip:-) and can take it upon myself to read them but may still have no idea where - if anywhere - a discussion is taking place by whom and I may be prevented from taking part in that discussion anyway; and for me that is the lack of openness that is at the heart of the problem I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues, hopefully resolve them, before last call. Then a default yes could make sense. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:06 PM Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no. At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote: The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be demonstrated ON THE RECORD. d/ And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records. When we have a mailing list like ietf-types or ietf-languages where there is a long term community of interest around a specific issue, should a discussion there be taken into account when assessing an individual submission? I think the answer is it depends and certainly may be yes. It should not over-ride other discussion or be given extraordinary weight, but I do think that the evidence there of interest, support, and consideration of issues raised should be taken into account. That's why I believe saying default yes or default no at Last Call is too black and white. I suggest that we try to include pointers to these discussions in the Last Call text, so that the community has the transparency it needs to assess these previous discussions. That will require a change in behavior, though, as I've been told by several senior folk that they don't read the Last Call additional text at all if the draft name alone convinces them they need to read the document; this was in the context of the considerable additional explanatory text included with the langtags New Last Call. Other suggestions on how to highlight this to the community reviewing a document at Last Call are more than welcome. regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
On 1/10/2005 14:41, Michael StJohns allegedly wrote: Hmm... No, actually I think this is right. This is guidance to the IAOC for publishing the rules not the rules themselves. In general, the rules should only cover exceptional expenses (e.g. spent $1000 paying the teleconference bill for xxx), but the IAOC can also establish rules for non-exceptional expenses (e.g. mileage for meetings) because its the only way they can get people to come to do something for example. OK At 09:12 AM 1/10/2005, Scott W Brim wrote: On 1/10/2005 06:12, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) allegedly wrote: OK, I have added the text (in my edit buffer) as proposed by Mike. So that is: t The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only. /t at the end of section 4, so just before section 4.1 Bert If this is still open to nits ... I don't think you want generally. It doesn't go with exceptional. Isn't reimbursement *always* for exceptional cases only? If it's exceptionally for common cases, would those not also be exceptional? :-) I suggest eliminating generally. Scott ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Tom == Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom I believe any individual submission should have a publicly Tom identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed Tom in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues, Tom hopefully resolve them, before last call. I believe sending such comments to ietf@ietf.org is a reasonable thing for you to do. Certainly that is what I would do if I had a public comment about a pre-last-call individual draft for which I didn't explicitly know of a better place. I recommend copying authors on such comments. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:52:36PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: [...] The whole community consensus thing is absolutely required for anything that deserves the word standard. [...] I would like to recall that new documents enter the standards-track as Proposed Standards and there are various ways to proceed from there (one of them is direct transition to Historic) and a long way to go for becoming Standard. So even if the IESG (a group of people we should trust - at least someone should be there you should trust ;-) made a bad decision and nobody recognized the IETF last call, then there are still several ways and mechanisms to fix the decision before something becomes a standard. (And mind you: a standards-track document which is not deployed is just a sequence of bits in a storage device.) [I do understand what people are concerned about here but I also find it important to remind myself from time to time how we are all working towards raising the bar, and once raised, someone will speak up to raise it even further. Why are we not trusting the system that has worked remarkable well most of the time so far? Perhaps thats human nature - if I look what it takes to release a new Linux kernel these days or how difficult it is to make the next Debian release, I may conclude that raising the bar is a normal part of such societies.] /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/ P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
--On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: M My take is that by the time we get to last call, we may be trying to do - are IMHO in the case of the I-D that kicked this off - things that were better done earlier. I can track I-Ds courtesy of the IETF mauling list (whoops Freudian slip:-) and can take it upon myself to read them but may still have no idea where - if anywhere - a discussion is taking place by whom and I may be prevented from taking part in that discussion anyway; and for me that is the lack of openness that is at the heart of the problem I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues, hopefully resolve them, before last call. Then a default yes could make sense. So do I. It's one of the pieces of advice I always give to I-D writers. It is, unfortunately, not often followed. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: IASA Finances - an attempt at some uplevelling
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 14:07 -0500 Leslie Daigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John, I believe Harald meant ISOC-appointed members of the IAOC, and not folks on the IAOC who happen to be ISOC members. (Hopefully, everyone on the IAOC will be an ISOC member...). That said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the proposal. I don't want to belabour it, because I don't want to give particular importance to something that is intended to be an edge case. I would suggest that the right way to handle it is, either: . to note that this will be rife with potential for conflict of interest, and that IAOC members appointed (or ex officio) by ISOC are expected to recuse themselves from discussion of separation issues (this should amount to what Harald has said, but phrases it in terms of more normal operating procedures); or . define a new committee, that is not the IAOC, but the IETF-specific subset (+ others, as necessary). I'm in complete agreement with the above. And I think I prefer your second formulation, if only because the right group of people to serve on a disentangling committee may not be the same people who have been selected to sit on the IAOC, regardless of how they are selected. In an odd way, that also makes the question of what to put in this document easier. If we go back to the principle that un-doing this agreement requires a new BCP, that hypothetical document can specify the relevant arrangements and transition structure as needed under the circumstances. That has another implication that may be important: Presumably any decision to undo the ISOC model should originate (at least formally) within the IETF -- the IAOC, or a subset of the IAOC should not have the authority to do it on its own. If the IAOC members, or a subset of them, are unhappy with ISOC, that should be brought to the attention of the IETF. And, if an un-doing process starts with ISOC deciding to fold its tent or kick the IETF out, it is again not clear that the members of the IAOC, with or without restrictions, are the right ones to handle that process -- the IETF community would almost certainly need to be brought into the discussion. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Vernon Schryver wrote: vs unless the incredible I'm gona tell the Liason on you vs threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing vs as usual that it sounded like. That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my: mw Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever it likes, mw but I would urge that any course of action which would mw cause a parting of the ways between the IETF and the W3C mw (and other Industry Consortia) should be avoided. I mw suggest that it may be time to escalate this matter to mw the IETF/W3C Liaison group. Where is the threat? I was suggesting that as the IETF and the W3C have a liaison group and as there appear to be disagreements as to how to move forward, the matter be raised at the liaison group. Is that not what such groups are for? -- Misha Wolf Standards Manager Chief Architecture Office Reuters --- - Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:15:46 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: You make an assumption here that there is some relationship between the usefulness of a standard done from a working group and those individual submissions. Actually, i was not intending to indicate such a relationship, nor do i believe it exists. Good and lousy work come from both sources... I was indicating that the IETF standardization requires indication of community support. We take the working group record as strong input to that indication, but that individual submissions lack any equivalent record. I am intrigued that IESG leadership apparently feels it acceptable to take the activity of random mailing lists, that have no IETF process standing and no IETF oversight, as sufficient indication of community support. Ultimately, taking such input as sufficient calls to question the need for ever forming a working group. But, then, even for established working groups, we seem to be ready to standardize things that show active support by literally only a few people. If there were a recent track record of successful, widespread, large-scale adoption for IETF standards, then that sort of random, subjective, opaque assessment process might be acceptable. Alas, there isn't, so it isn't. On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:54:39 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: Dave, I think that the requirements for a successful last call depend on how much review and interest have been demonstrated before the last call. To repeat my response to John K: My comments were in response to an explicit statement that the community doesn't care much and my comments included the statement A standards process is primarily about gaining community support for a common way of doing something. Thanks for noticing that there is a difference between having no indication of community support, versus there are a number of people who see a need for it. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:06:40 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: suggest that we try to include pointers to these discussions in the Last Call text, so that the community has the transparency it needs to assess these previous discussions. ahh, now. that certainly seems like a good idea, however, one needs to be careful that this does not turn into statements like there are x years of discussion on the foo mailing list; go read it all. ultimately, that's not very helpful for making an assessment. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:52:36 -0700 (MST), Vernon Schryver wrote: Instead of a default no for BCPs or standards track RFC from individual submissions, it would be better to make it a simple no. If the IETF does not feel like investing the substantial effort and delays to form a WG and the rest of the tiresome, formal IETF dance, then that in itself is proof that the issue is unworthy of the IETF's official seal I do not agree with this recommendation. I think individual submissions are a good alternative in some cases. However I think Vernon's posting does point to a very good set of questions. Namely, what is the purpose of IETF standardization, as distinct from IETF specification development? What is the incremental value of that going through IETF-wide approval? Here are my own answers: 1. There is an independent technical community assessment of efficacy and safety for the specification 2. The is hand-off of the specification's ownership to the IETF. I see these both as extremely valuable. The question that follows is whether we are conducting the IETF individual submission process that ensures a reality for both of these? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
unsubscribe
unsubscribe ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [I do understand what people are concerned about here but I also find it important to remind myself from time to time how we are all working towards raising the bar, and once raised, someone will speak up to raise it even further. Why are we not trusting the system that has worked remarkable well most of the time so far? Perhaps thats human nature - if I look what it takes to release a new Linux kernel these days or how difficult it is to make the next Debian release, I may conclude that raising the bar is a normal part of such societies.] That is seriously wrong. The issue does not involve rising bars, but falling bars that need to be caught or at least seen to be falling. The IETF is, as it has been for 10 or 15 years, under attack from those who use it for ends not consciously chosen by the IETF. 15 years ago there would have been blank looks of incredulity to the suggestion that an outside, sometimes ostensibly ad hoc and other times supposedly offical standards organization should push through a document with as official a designation as BCP without the let, leave, or hindrance of IETF consensus. However, that is the case today. 10 years ago no one would have considered the notion that individual submissions should become official standards (of course I include Proposed as an offical IETF standard) of the IETF with a yes vote assumed from everyone outside the IESG. Of course, 20 years or 25 years ago, things were nominally different. In practical terms, the bar was higher still. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
In principle, the process for moving in stages from I-D to Full Standard is a good one, but only for those who know and respect the different categories. Increasingly, I get the impression that those not au fait with the workings of the IETF see an I-D as a considered piece of work, to be referenced as if was almost a standard; which is sometimes true, sometimes not. We can tell the difference, in lots of ways, others may not, so I would like more indication from the first that an I-D, particularly an individual submission, is an idea on the table, for discussion, with a mailing list attached where the discussion can happen. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 10:16 PM Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no. On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:52:36PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: [...] The whole community consensus thing is absolutely required for anything that deserves the word standard. [...] I would like to recall that new documents enter the standards-track as Proposed Standards and there are various ways to proceed from there (one of them is direct transition to Historic) and a long way to go for becoming Standard. So even if the IESG (a group of people we should trust - at least someone should be there you should trust ;-) made a bad decision and nobody recognized the IETF last call, then there are still several ways and mechanisms to fix the decision before something becomes a standard. (And mind you: a standards-track document which is not deployed is just a sequence of bits in a storage device.) snip ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
From: Misha Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs unless the incredible I'm gona tell the Liason on you vs threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing vs as usual that it sounded like. That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my: mw Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever it likes, mw but I would urge that any course of action which would mw cause a parting of the ways between the IETF and the W3C mw (and other Industry Consortia) should be avoided. I mw suggest that it may be time to escalate this matter to mw the IETF/W3C Liaison group. Where is the threat? I was suggesting that as the IETF and the W3C have a liaison group and as there appear to be disagreements as to how to move forward, the matter be raised at the liaison group. Is that not what such groups are for? Please credit some of us with understanding the meaning of escalate in the intended sense of evoke to an authority that will issue a writ of mandamus. Other words in Mr. Wolf's message including any course of action which would cause a parting of the ways were not lacking in forcefulness. Then there was the awesome list of authorities that the IETF list members is ignoring at its peril. See http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33563.html When I read Mr. Wolf's message the first time, I was reminded of an IETF slogan about rejecting kings and presidents as well as ancient friction between the DDN protocol designers and users and the ISO. I suspect that the language tag saga is not as bad as it seems and that some good new IETF documents might come of it. It should also serve as a red flag for another instance of the general problem of the quality of IETF documents. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
At 19:06 10/01/2005, Ted Hardie wrote: At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote: The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be demonstrated ON THE RECORD. And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records. Dear Ted, I suppose you want to say there are multiple types of records, not that there could be different records at the same time. There is only one single record: the one published by the IESG. Usually it is a WG, but obviously there might be a procedure to have a private list published, when a formal WG is not deemed worth being created. Otherwise, concerned people cannot know which one is _the_ record. Also, the first community support is demonstrated by the IAB approval of the WG charter. There are already too many lists to follow. The IAB charter approval is what makes the difference between work and lobbying. Best regards. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 21:29 + Misha Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vernon Schryver wrote: vs unless the incredible I'm gona tell the Liason on you vs threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing vs as usual that it sounded like. That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my: mw Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever it likes, mw but I would urge that any course of action which would mw cause a parting of the ways between the IETF and the W3C mw (and other Industry Consortia) should be avoided. I mw suggest that it may be time to escalate this matter to mw the IETF/W3C Liaison group. Where is the threat? I was suggesting that as the IETF and the W3C have a liaison group and as there appear to be disagreements as to how to move forward, the matter be raised at the liaison group. Is that not what such groups are for? Misha, Ignoring, for the moment, several other aspects of your statement that I, and apparently some others, found upsetting, liaison or groups like that one are usually constituted to sort out issues arising between real or official projects of the relevant groups. In some cases, they can be, and have been, used very effectively to sort out issues arising between the projects or work program of one group and somewhat-related work program items of the other group. But, in this case, * We have been assured that there is no W3C project in this area. * There is also no IETF project in this area: we have no mechanisms for having projects outside of the WG process and activities for which the IAB or IRTF formally sign up (and it is always an open question whether the latter two are IETF projects or not). * And, regardless of the fact that some people are doing work in both places, there is no formal liaison between the IETF and W3C over language tag issues (and the IETF has never recognized informal liaisons as having any standing). So, while I'm much in favor of the ability of that particular coordination group to discuss whatever its members find interesting, I can't imagine what you think a discussion there would accomplish in this case. It has no ability to create IETF WGs, even though several of its members are IESG members who might participate in a WG creating process. Not even the IESG has the ability to retroactively turn a design team-like discussion into a WG. Similarly that group has no authority to turn this effort into a W3C project with which the IETF would feel an obligation to coordinate. And certainly it can't create a joint standards development activity or overrule the IESG on a decision about consensus in the _IETF_ community. So I'm having trouble seeing that suggestion as helpful. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, stability, and extensions
Let me take this opportunity to say that Apple, too, strongly supports 3066bis. Deborah Goldsmith Internationalization, Unicode liaison Apple Computer, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 10, 2005, at 3:33 AM, Misha Wolf wrote: I find statements such as this mind-boggling. Please explain what you mean by much support. There have been at least as many individuals writing mails in favour of the document as against it. Furthermore, it has been made clear that the individuals writing the document and supporting it represent *very* large communities. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues, hopefully resolve them, before last call. Then a default yes could make sense. So do I. It's one of the pieces of advice I always give to I-D writers. It is, unfortunately, not often followed. Well, that may well depend on how far along the I-D is, but in the ID checklist section 3.8 found on the rfc-editor's website (see: http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html#anchor6 ), it explicitly says: Avoid text that will become outdated after RFC is published. Examples include non-permanent URLs, mentions of specific mailing lists as places to send comments on a document, or referring to specific WGs as a place to perform specific future actions (e.g., reviewing followup documents). So, even if an I-D starts out with information about where to discuss the draft, it needs to be removed once it gets close to being final. Also, even if the I-D has this information, it isn't in the announcement. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a manditory section in all I-Ds that lists this information, and *only* this information. Then that info could be easily put into the announcement and the RFC-editor could remove that section before publication. -wayne ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Document Action: 'Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Certification Path Building' to Informational RFC
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Certification Path Building ' draft-ietf-pkix-certpathbuild-05.txt as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley and Sam Hartman. Technical Summary This document provides guidance and recommendations to developers who need to build X.509 public-key certification paths within their applications. By following the guidance and recommendations defined in this document, an application developer is more likely to develop a robust X.509 certificate-enabled application that can build valid certification paths in a wide range of PKI environments. Working Group Summary The PKIX Working Group reached consensus on this document. Protocol Quality This document was reviewed by Russ Housley for the IESG. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Protocol Action: 'Full-mode Fax Profile for Internet Mail: FFPIM' to Proposed Standard
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Full-mode Fax Profile for Internet Mail: FFPIM ' draft-ietf-fax-ffpim-08.txt as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Internet Fax Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Scott Hollenbeck and Ted Hardie. Technical Summary Classic facsimile document exchange represents both a set of technical specifications and a class of service. Previous work has replicated some of that service class as a profile within Internet mail. The current specification defines full mode carriage of facsimile data over the Internet, building upon that previous work and adding the remaining functionality necessary for achieving reliability and capability negotiation for Internet mail, on a par with classic T.30 facsimile. These additional features are designed to provide the highest level of interoperability with the standards-compliant email infrastructure and mail user agents, while providing a level of service that approximates what is currently enjoyed by fax users. Working Group Summary The FAX working group reached consensus to advance the document. There were no issues raised during IETF last call. Protocol Quality Scott Hollenbeck has reviewed the specification for the IESG. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
Protocol Action: 'Extended Sequence Number Addendum to IPsec DOI for ISAKMP' to Proposed Standard
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Extended Sequence Number Addendum to IPsec DOI for ISAKMP ' draft-ietf-ipsec-esn-addendum-03.txt as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the IP Security Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Russ Housley and Sam Hartman. Technical Summary The IPsec Authentication Header (AH) and Encapsulating Security Payload (ESP) protocols use a sequence number to detect replay. This document describes extensions to the IPsec DOI for ISAKMP. These extensions support negotiation of the use of traditional 32-bit sequence numbers or extended 64-bit sequence numbers for a particular AH or ESP security association. Working Group Summary The IPsec Working Group came to consensus on this document. Protocol Quality This document was reviewed by Russell Housley for the IESG. ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
