Re: Content-free Last Call comments
I'm seeing two things here. One is that you need some context of *why* something is supported, as per your examples. The other is that you need a level of detail that's more than one line. However, I'd note that *all* of those examples are (in my MUA) one line each. So, can you clarify? I.e., if Russ had included one of those lines, would that have been enough? I'd support asking for that level of detail. OTOH I'm not for making people show their work to a greater level of detail; the overhead of participating in an effort is high, and the most relevant people are often exhausted by this point in the process. We shouldn't pile more work onto them (he says, conscious of the work piled onto ADs as well). Regards, On 11/06/2013, at 5:37 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the IETF list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the entire contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call request: On 6/10/13 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote: I have read the document, I a support publication on the standards track. Russ A month ago, we had another very senior member of the community post just such a message (in that case directly to the IESG) in response to a different Last Call. I took that senior member of the community to task for it. But apparently Russ either disagrees with my complaint or didn't notice that discussion on the IESG list, so I think it's worth airing here in public: A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an IESG member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free. We don't vote in the IETF, so a statement of support without a reason is meaningless. We should not be encouraging folks to send such things, and having the IAB chair do so is encouraging bad behavior. Had I not known Russ and his particular expertise, I would have no reason to take it into consideration *at all*. We should not have to determine the reputation of the poster to determine the weight of the message. Even given my background knowledge of who Russ is, I cannot tell from that message which one of the following Russ is saying: - This document precisely describes a protocol of which I have been an implementer, and I was able to independently develop an interoperable implementation from the document. - This document is about a technology with which I have familiarity and I have reviewed the technical details. It's fine. - I've seen objection X to the document and I think the objection is incorrect for such-and-so reasons. - My company has a vested interest in this technology becoming a standard, and even though I know nothing about it, I support it becoming a standards track document. - My Aunt Gertrude is the document editor and she said that she needs statements of support, so here I am. - I have a running wager on when we're going to reach RFC 7000 and I want to increase my odds of winning. I take it I am supposed to presume from my friendship and knowledge of Russ that one of the first three is true and that the last three are not. (Well, maybe the last one might be true.) But if instead of from Russ Housely, the message was from Foo Bar, I would have absolutely no way to distinguish among the above. I think we should stop with these one-line statements of support. They don't add anything to the consensus call. I'm disappointed that Russ contributed to this pattern. Other opinions? pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-pkix-est-07.txt (Enrollment over Secure Transport) to Proposed Standard
At 07:45 10-06-2013, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) WG (pkix) to consider the following document: - 'Enrollment over Secure Transport' draft-ietf-pkix-est-07.txt as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-24. Exceptionally, comments may be There weren't any comments during the WGLC of draft-ietf-pkix-est-06. The AD review of draft-ietf-pkix-est-06 was posted to the mailing list and the only comments after that was this version address my concerns. I read the document. It is about the use of an obsolete Proposed Standard or later versions of that specification. The comments from three individuals who happen to be Area Directors creates a conundrum; should I give more weight to them or to a content-free comment? I do not support the publication of this document as a Proposed Standard as it is doubtful that it has the consensus of the working group. Regards, -sm
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
so now i am expected to do a write-up of why i show simple support of a document i have read? may i use carbon paper for the triplicate, or will a copier suffice? surely we can find a way to waste more time and effort. randy
Re: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
The IETF Last Call has finished after 06.06.13 and now you request discussions. I think only IESG can call for discussions not editors. On 6/10/13, Ulrich Herberg ulr...@herberg.name wrote: We have submitted a new revision of the draft, addressing one comment from Adrian during IETF LC (which we wanted to address in the previous revision, but forgot about it). We added a new section that can trigger future work, as requested by Adrian. I don't see that Adrian requested a future work section, could you refer to his input for that or was that private request. May be comments in last call made you think to add missing information as future. What is the reason for future work in this informational draft? To the WG: Obviously, the new text is up for discussion if anyone has any issues with it. Is that a new text or new idea? if I don't know what the Editors discussed privately (outside IETF) how can I discuss inside IETF? However, I will not review any more for this draft because it has special policy for refering to contributions. AB Best regards Ulrich On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:22 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Mobile Ad-hoc Networks WG (manet) to consider the following document: - 'Security Threats for NHDP' draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-06. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document analyses common security threats of the Neighborhood Discovery Protocol (NHDP), and describes their potential impacts on MANET routing protocols using NHDP. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ manet mailing list ma...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet ___ manet mailing list ma...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
RE: [manet] Last Call: draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats-03.txt (Security Threats for NHDP) to Informational RFC
We have submitted a new revision of the draft, addressing one comment from Adrian during IETF LC (which we wanted to address in the previous revision, but forgot about it). We added a new section that can trigger future work, as requested by Adrian. I don't see that Adrian requested a future work section, could you refer to his input for that or was that private request. May be comments in last call made you think to add missing information as future. What is the reason for future work in this informational draft? Abdussalam, Look and ye shall see. Seek and ye shall find. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg15423.html 2. Please consider adding a short section that may drive new work by suggesting which threats need to be addressed in new protocol work, which in deployment, and which by applications. Adrian
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:51 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: so now i am expected to do a write-up of why i show simple support of a document i have read? may i use carbon paper for the triplicate, or will a copier suffice? surely we can find a way to waste more time and effort. If you say I support publication, in IETF last call without saying why, you are arguably wasting other peoples' time. If you say I read the document and I think it's technically solid; furthermore, it addresses a real need, then you've spent a solid 5 seconds more typing, and we have something to go on. Keep your carbon paper in the drawer where it belongs.
RE: Content-free Last Call comments
We have to know, not that you have read the document, but that you have -understood- it. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Bush [ra...@psg.com] Sent: 11 June 2013 09:51 To: Mark Nottingham Cc: Pete Resnick; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments so now i am expected to do a write-up of why i show simple support of a document i have read? may i use carbon paper for the triplicate, or will a copier suffice? surely we can find a way to waste more time and effort. randy
RE: Content-free Last Call comments
Ad-hominem arguments are not good arguments. Peer review depends on what the peer says, not who the peer is - something any academic should know. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell [stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie] Sent: 11 June 2013 01:36 To: Pete Resnick Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments Hi Pete, I think you err when you say this: A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an IESG member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free. In fact, you do know Russ. If you did not, then the above would be far closer to correct. But in reality you do know a lot more than you claim below. With overwhelming probability, your choice #2 applies and I'm very surprised you don't also think that. If it made a significant difference and I wasn't sure I'd ask Russ to clarify. For me, I read Russ' mail and I concluded he meant #2. And I'm confident in that conclusion. So I'm really bemused when you say that you don't know how to interpret Russ' mail. Declaring that mail problematic also seems quite purist to me. And insisting on purity seems to me worse than being slightly but harmlessly ambiguous. At the same time I agree we do not want a procession of +1 mails. But then we won't get that for this draft. And if we did get that for any draft, some IETF participants (probably incl. you and I) would notice that and query it or object. So perhaps you're also being a tad trigger-happy on jumping on this message. Lastly, I think evaluating IETF LC messages only in terms of how they help the IESG evaluate consensus or not is wrong. Those messages are for and from the IETF community. So if e.g. some renowned NFS person who's hardly known to the IESG were to have sent an equivalent message, that might have been quite good input that Martin or Spencer could have translated for you. And that's just fine. And it would be fine if Russ' mail had been directed not at the IESG but at some other part of the community. So bottom line, I think you're wrong, Russ' mail was not content-free. S. PS: Yes, this is a not-very-good academic accusing an employee of an industrial behemoth of excess purity. Go figure:-) On 06/10/2013 09:37 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the IETF list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the entire contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call request: On 6/10/13 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote: I have read the document, I a support publication on the standards track. Russ A month ago, we had another very senior member of the community post just such a message (in that case directly to the IESG) in response to a different Last Call. I took that senior member of the community to task for it. But apparently Russ either disagrees with my complaint or didn't notice that discussion on the IESG list, so I think it's worth airing here in public: A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an IESG member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free. We don't vote in the IETF, so a statement of support without a reason is meaningless. We should not be encouraging folks to send such things, and having the IAB chair do so is encouraging bad behavior. Had I not known Russ and his particular expertise, I would have no reason to take it into consideration *at all*. We should not have to determine the reputation of the poster to determine the weight of the message. Even given my background knowledge of who Russ is, I cannot tell from that message which one of the following Russ is saying: - This document precisely describes a protocol of which I have been an implementer, and I was able to independently develop an interoperable implementation from the document. - This document is about a technology with which I have familiarity and I have reviewed the technical details. It's fine. - I've seen objection X to the document and I think the objection is incorrect for such-and-so reasons. - My company has a vested interest in this technology becoming a standard, and even though I know nothing about it, I support it becoming a standards track document. - My Aunt Gertrude is the document editor and she said that she needs statements of support, so here I am. - I have a running wager on when we're going to reach RFC 7000 and I want to increase my odds of winning. I take it I am supposed to presume from my friendship and knowledge of Russ that one of the first three is true and that the last three are not. (Well, maybe the last one might be true.) But if instead of from Russ Housely, the message was from Foo Bar, I would have absolutely no way to distinguish among the above. I think we should stop with these one-line statements of support. They don't add anything to the consensus call. I'm
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
A comment is a comment (important for discussing) which I want to see, no matter if content-free or not, the origin requester (IETF Last Call/WGLC) of such comments SHOULD specify which type of comment they want if necessary. As long as it is a comment-on-discuss-lists any can ask questions to the commentor to know the comment-reason if necessary. IMO, we don't want no-comment, ignorance, or no answers if requested, which will mean no discussions. AB
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Jun 11, 2013, at 13:17, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: We have to know, not that you have read the document, but that you have -understood- it. Process experiment: end all Internet-Drafts with a multiple-choice test. Grüße, Carsten
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote: A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an IESG member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free. I think this is, in part, due to the question asked. The IETF's Last Call announcement presumes much on the part of those reading it. You're aiming to solicit something that's not asked for. Compare and contrast with the XSF's Last Call announcements, in particular the questionnaire at the end. Note that in this thread, almost all respondents are actually filling it in, and further note that at least some of those are experienced IETF participants, suggesting that even the jaded IETF folk might join in. http://jabber.996255.n3.nabble.com/LAST-CALL-XEP-0308-Last-Message-Correction-td14079.html I'd suggest that putting together a set of five questions you're hoping to have answered would be sensible and useful. Perhaps: 1) Do you believe this document is needed? 2) Is the document ready for publication as-is? 3) Are you intending to, or have you already, implemented and/or deployed this specification? 4) Does the document adequately explain the risks involved in implementing and/or deploying this specification? 5) Is the document sufficiently clear to allow unambiguous understanding of how to implement and/or deploy the specification? Dave.
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments Date: Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:46:29PM + Quoting Ted Lemon (ted.le...@nominum.com): Determining consensus in an IETF last call is a bit more complicated than that. It's not a working group last call. If someone objects to publication during IETF last call, and their objection has already been discussed and addressed in the working group, the objection in IETF last call doesn't break that consensus. So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough, can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone? -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 NATHAN ... your PARENTS were in a CARCRASH!! They're VOIDED -- They COLLAPSED They had no CHAINSAWS ... They had no MONEY MACHINES ... They did PILLS in SKIMPY GRASS SKIRTS ... Nathan, I EMULATED them ... but they were OFF-KEY ... signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 01:52:46PM +0200 Quoting Måns Nilsson (mansa...@besserwisser.org): So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough, can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone? s/they/the WG decisions/ My apologies. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 Once, there was NO fun ... This was before MENU planning, FASHION statements or NAUTILUS equipment ... Then, in 1985 ... FUN was completely encoded in this tiny MICROCHIP ... It contain 14,768 vaguely amusing SIT-COM pilots!! We had to wait FOUR BILLION years but we finally got JERRY LEWIS, MTV and a large selection of creme-filled snack cakes! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 6/11/2013 6:36 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: I think this is, in part, due to the question asked. The IETF's Last Call announcement presumes much on the part of those reading it. You're aiming to solicit something that's not asked for. Compare and contrast with the XSF's Last Call announcements, in Re-formulating the LC text sounds like an excellent idea, to call for more substantive comments. I'd suggest that putting together a set of five questions you're hoping to have answered would be sensible and useful. Perhaps: If we want the statements of support to be meaningful, they need to have the creator of the statement do some real work -- more than mechanically checking boxes -- demonstrating the 'understanding' that Lloyd suggests. Multiple guess questions don't demonstrate understanding; worse, they are too easily plagiarized as part of a campaign. One of the unfortunate realities in the current IETF is periodically seeing patterns of support that have more to do with politicking for a draft than for commenting on a critical review of it. There is no perfect protection against this, but asking each statement of support to demonstrate the commenter's own understanding will help. We also sometimes have drafts that have had little working group activity. This is independent of the quality of the work, but it means that there's little sense of community need or interest. It's not supposed to happen, but it's become more common in the current IETF. Again, there's no perfect protection against that, but seeing public activity during IETF LC that demonstrates enough community interest to do the minimal work of offering a capsule commentary on the draft will help. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote: So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough, can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone? You can always challenge the WG chair's finding, but you don't need to hassle the whole IETF to do that—just talk to the responsible AD for the working group, or to the IESG as a whole if the responsible AD fails you. That's what the appeals process is supposed to be for. You can of course raise the point on the IETF mailing list, and that is likely to result in the responsible AD considering the question of whether the WG chairs made the right call—I certainly would do so if someone raised such a point on a document for which I was responsible AD. But if the responsible AD decides that the chair made the right call, the objection you raise in IETF last call doesn't count against the working group consensus.
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: If we want the statements of support to be meaningful, they need to have the creator of the statement do some real work -- more than mechanically checking boxes -- demonstrating the 'understanding' that Lloyd suggests. Multiple guess questions don't demonstrate understanding; worse, they are too easily plagiarized as part of a campaign. We want understanding, of course, but I think requiring Russ to demonstrate that by writing a paragraph or six on the finer points of the proposal would be daft. One of the unfortunate realities in the current IETF is periodically seeing patterns of support that have more to do with politicking for a draft than for commenting on a critical review of it. There is no perfect protection against this, but asking each statement of support to demonstrate the commenter's own understanding will help. If the politicking is from multiple organizations who all want to implement and deploy, then I'm all in favour... If there's only one implementer willing to say as much, then even quite a slew of deployment wannabees would have me concerned for the viability of the protocol. I'd note that the XSF's questions are only concerned with implementation rather than deployment - maybe that helps, I'm not sure either way. We also sometimes have drafts that have had little working group activity. This is independent of the quality of the work, but it means that there's little sense of community need or interest. It's not supposed to happen, but it's become more common in the current IETF. Again, there's no perfect protection against that, but seeing public activity during IETF LC that demonstrates enough community interest to do the minimal work of offering a capsule commentary on the draft will help. Perhaps having a shepherd-style write up included in the last call announcement? (Or available via a URL there). Dave.
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 6/11/2013 5:25 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: We want understanding, of course, but I think requiring Russ to demonstrate that by writing a paragraph or six on the finer points of the proposal would be daft. That's the problem with special-case exceptions, such as requiring less work by an august personage. It reduces to a cult of personality and it doesn't scale. For an organizational culture of the type the IETF expresses, that doesn't fit. The opinions of people IETF management positions are not supposed to automatically have more weight in determining the specifics of our specifications; they are supposed to make their case, just like everyone else. We try to distinguish between comment when wearing a formal IETF hat versus without a hat. So it's not the IETF Chair making the comment, it's merely a well-known personage. It's easy to give special rights to such folk, such as not requiring them to offer the substance behind their statement, but it actually has a pretty insidious effect. It's gets us used to pro-forma postings; it gets us relying on a few folk to sway things; it gets us to count rather than think. If the politicking is from multiple organizations who all want to implement and deploy, then I'm all in favour... Pete Resnick has been working on a careful formulation of what the IETF means when it talks about 'rough consensus'. My own interpretation of what he's developing -- and I want to stress this is me speaking, not me speaking for Pete -- is that consensus is a combination of both numbers and substance. The mere fact that almost everyone is in favor of something can't be enough. What is also required is that the arguments of objectors must have inadequately persuasive substance. One voice with a really solid concern, which withstands independent review, needs to be able to upset an overwhelming agreement. So no, the fact that the politicking is from multiple organizations needs to be insufficient. We also sometimes have drafts that have had little working group activity. ... Perhaps having a shepherd-style write up included in the last call announcement? (Or available via a URL there). Perhaps something like that, yeah. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 6/11/2013 5:25 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: We want understanding, of course, but I think requiring Russ to demonstrate that by writing a paragraph or six on the finer points of the proposal would be daft. That's the problem with special-case exceptions, such as requiring less work by an august personage. It reduces to a cult of personality and it doesn't scale. For an organizational culture of the type the IETF expresses, that doesn't fit. The opinions of people IETF management positions are not supposed to automatically have more weight in determining the specifics of our specifications; they are supposed to make their case, just like everyone else. We try to distinguish between comment when wearing a formal IETF hat versus without a hat. So it's not the IETF Chair making the comment, it's merely a well-known personage. It's easy to give special rights to such folk, such as not requiring them to offer the substance behind their statement, but it actually has a pretty insidious effect. It's gets us used to pro-forma postings; it gets us relying on a few folk to sway things; it gets us to count rather than think. Ah, sorry, that's not what I meant - I included Russ's name purely because he was the original exemplar, not because he's special in any particular way. I meant that requiring anyone to demonstrate understand of the draft by jumping through hoops would, ipso facto, require them to jump through hoops. If the politicking is from multiple organizations who all want to implement and deploy, then I'm all in favour... Pete Resnick has been working on a careful formulation of what the IETF means when it talks about 'rough consensus'. My own interpretation of what he's developing -- and I want to stress this is me speaking, not me speaking for Pete -- is that consensus is a combination of both numbers and substance. The mere fact that almost everyone is in favor of something can't be enough. What is also required is that the arguments of objectors must have inadequately persuasive substance. One voice with a really solid concern, which withstands independent review, needs to be able to upset an overwhelming agreement. So no, the fact that the politicking is from multiple organizations needs to be insufficient. Again, I think you're misunderstanding me - I meant (somewhat facetiously) I'm in favour of the politicking, not that I think that it should carry the day automatically. If there are unanswered objections, that should indeed count against. More generally, in the case of the XSF's small set of questions, if people answer the last call with one-word answers to those and nothing further, this gives that community sufficient information to gauge whether to advance a proposal along the standards track there - in other words, given a fairly minimal bar, any engagement meeting that bar is valuable. That bar has to be high enough to carry more than the single bit of information Russ's note carried on its own, though, but it also needs to be low enough that it won't prove a barrier to response. I think the XSF's questions are close to the right level (I think the XSF could, if it wanted, tweak these and improve them after this number of years); I don't think it would be very hard to find some similarly reasonable start point for the IETF. Dave.
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 6/11/13 8:12 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote: So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough, can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone? You can always challenge the WG chair's finding, but you don't need to hassle the whole IETF to do that—just talk to the responsible AD for the working group, or to the IESG as a whole if the responsible AD fails you. That's what the appeals process is supposed to be for. You can of course raise the point on the IETF mailing list, and that is likely to result in the responsible AD considering the question of whether the WG chairs made the right call—I certainly would do so if someone raised such a point on a document for which I was responsible AD. But if the responsible AD decides that the chair made the right call, the objection you raise in IETF last call doesn't count against the working group consensus. Engaging during IETF LC on a point made during WGLC or earlier that wasn't adopted is a-okay in my book. I think of it as raising awareness. I mean maybe the authors and WG chair didn't get it right. But, then what Ted said kicks in. spt
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
Re-formulating the LC text sounds like an excellent idea, to call for more substantive comments. perhaps we should go to the source of the problem and require a phd dissertation and defense from draft authors. how much process chaos can we create? randy
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: how much process chaos can we create? Don't ask questions you don't want answered! :)
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: Re-formulating the LC text sounds like an excellent idea, to call for more substantive comments. perhaps we should go to the source of the problem and require a phd dissertation and defense from draft authors. how much process chaos can we create? I think using a reductio ad absurdum is a little unfair when I've demonstrated that the proposed reformulation works (whilst being purely voluntary) in a similar organization with common participants. In particular, I'm not suggesting any change to process. Dave.
RE: Content-free Last Call comments
How many RFCs describe things that are implemented? How many RFCs describe things that are deployed? Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Cridland [d...@cridland.net] Sent: 11 June 2013 12:36 To: Pete Resnick Cc: ietf@ietf.org Discussion Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.commailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an IESG member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free. I think this is, in part, due to the question asked. The IETF's Last Call announcement presumes much on the part of those reading it. You're aiming to solicit something that's not asked for. Compare and contrast with the XSF's Last Call announcements, in particular the questionnaire at the end. Note that in this thread, almost all respondents are actually filling it in, and further note that at least some of those are experienced IETF participants, suggesting that even the jaded IETF folk might join in. http://jabber.996255.n3.nabble.com/LAST-CALL-XEP-0308-Last-Message-Correction-td14079.html I'd suggest that putting together a set of five questions you're hoping to have answered would be sensible and useful. Perhaps: 1) Do you believe this document is needed? 2) Is the document ready for publication as-is? 3) Are you intending to, or have you already, implemented and/or deployed this specification? 4) Does the document adequately explain the risks involved in implementing and/or deploying this specification? 5) Is the document sufficiently clear to allow unambiguous understanding of how to implement and/or deploy the specification? Dave.
Re: [IETF] Content-free Last Call comments
[ Not sure if this is adding to the Signal or the Noise on the Discuss list, but it *will* help bump up my ranking on the Weekly posting summary, which I use to justify my participation to my management. That's what it's for, isn't it?!* ] On Jun 10, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote: Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the IETF list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the entire contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call request: On 6/10/13 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote: I have read the document, I a support publication on the standards track. Russ A month ago, we had another very senior member of the community post just such a message (in that case directly to the IESG) in response to a different Last Call. I took that senior member of the community to task for it. But apparently Russ either disagrees with my complaint or didn't notice that discussion on the IESG list, so I think it's worth airing here in public: A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an IESG member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free. I disagree. We don't vote in the IETF, so a statement of support without a reason is meaningless. We should not be encouraging folks to send such things, and having the IAB chair do so is encouraging bad behavior. Had I not known Russ and his particular expertise, I would have no reason to take it into consideration *at all*. We should not have to determine the reputation of the poster to determine the weight of the message. Even given my background knowledge of who Russ is, I cannot tell from that message which one of the following Russ is saying: - This document precisely describes a protocol of which I have been an implementer, and I was able to independently develop an interoperable implementation from the document. - This document is about a technology with which I have familiarity and I have reviewed the technical details. It's fine. - I've seen objection X to the document and I think the objection is incorrect for such-and-so reasons. - My company has a vested interest in this technology becoming a standard, and even though I know nothing about it, I support it becoming a standards track document. - My Aunt Gertrude is the document editor and she said that she needs statements of support, so here I am. - I have a running wager on when we're going to reach RFC 7000 and I want to increase my odds of winning. I take it I am supposed to presume from my friendship and knowledge of Russ that one of the first three is true and that the last three are not. (Well, maybe the last one might be true.) But if instead of from Russ Housely, the message was from Foo Bar, I would have absolutely no way to distinguish among the above. Actually, yes. Russ has been participating in the IETF (and specifically in the area where he posted the above email) for a long time -- you know this, because you've also been participating. In *my opinion* he has shown himself to be diligent and sane. This means that *I* would give his comment and support great weight -- I'd *assume* he has read and understood the document, and is supporting it because #1, 2, 3 and / or 6. If Foo Bar had posted the comment, and in *my* opinion Foo Bar is a total nutter, I would give his comment less, or possibly negative, weight. Obviously your opinions of Russ and Foo may be opposite to mine -- you apply your own weighting to each comment -- that's why we pay you the big bucks… If Foo Bar is new enough to the IETF and cannot reasonably expect everyone on the IESG (or in a WG or wherever) to know and have formed an opinion of him, then it is *Foo Bar's* responsibility to more fully support his comments. Do folk who actually *participate* actively and sanely get to assume that they have earned some standing and credibility? Yup. I view this as a feature, not a bug. If I go to my doctor and he tells me that I simply have a cold (and not, like I'm convinced, the plague), I should presumably weight his comments higher than those of my crazy next door neighbor (who, apparently, routinely communicates with beings from another dimension), yes? We want to reward merit and participation, not make the process so annoying that those who participate get annoyed and wander off. If anyone *opposes* a draft, I think that it behooves them to explain what the issue is, regardless of who they are. This is similar to at a restaurant -- when the waiter asks if you are enjoying your [steak|tofu] it's fine to say Yes thanks, great, but if express displeasure you should be ready to explain what you didn't like. I think we should stop with these one-line statements of support. They don't add anything to the consensus call. I'm disappointed that Russ contributed to this pattern. Other opinions? My opinion is that the
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough, can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone? If that were ever to happen, I don't see why not. In the recent cases I've seen where someone claims this is an issue, what actually happned is that a person only tangentially involved in the WG is obsessing about some technical wart and refuses to (or worse, can't) understand the overall context that led the WG to decide what it did. It's hard to see any benefit to rehashing such arguments in front of the whole IETF. R's, John
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 06/11/2013 10:43 AM, John Levine wrote: So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough, can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone? If that were ever to happen, I don't see why not. In the recent cases I've seen where someone claims this is an issue, what actually happned is that a person only tangentially involved in the WG is obsessing about some technical wart and refuses to (or worse, can't) understand the overall context that led the WG to decide what it did. It's hard to see any benefit to rehashing such arguments in front of the whole IETF. The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume working groups are infallible, or more importantly not subject to the groupthink phenomenon. Otherwise what is IETF LC for? Doug
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume working groups are infallible, or more importantly not subject to the groupthink phenomenon. Otherwise what is IETF LC for? The IETF last call is for catching things the working group missed, not for rehashing arguments that were beaten to death in the working group. It is certainly possible for a discussion in the working group to go one way, and then for the same discussion to come up in IETF last call and go the other way, because the experts on the topic were not included in the discussion, or because their advice was inappropriately ignored. This does happen; unfortunately, when it happens it often doesn't get caught in IETF last call anyway.
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 6/11/13 9:52 AM, Doug Barton wrote: The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume working groups are infallible, or more importantly not subject to the groupthink phenomenon. Otherwise what is IETF LC for? Right. We've had some issues with document quality, and I can think of several documents that sailed through WG last call and should not have. Melinda
Bullseye (was Re: [IETF] Content-free Last Call comments)
On 6/11/2013 10:21 AM, Warren Kumari wrote: [ Not sure if this is adding to the Signal or the Noise on the Discuss list, but it*will* help bump up my ranking on the Weekly posting summary, which I use to justify my participation to my management. That's what it's for, isn't it?!* ] oh boy. we need to put that on a t-shirt. it's just perfect. and universal. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 6/11/13 10:02 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: The IETF last call is for catching things the working group missed, not for rehashing arguments that were beaten to death in the working group. I am not sure I fully understand why we're having this conversation, or rather why this aspect of the broader discussion requires attention. Sometimes working groups make mistakes, and I don't think that in practice there'd be general objection to having serious problems identified during IETF last call. Yes, there have been cases where cranks who can't let go of an idea that was rejected try to flog it to death, but that doesn't mean that identifying and dealing with real problems should be dismissed. Melinda
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that we're voting. Details below. Specifically on Stephen's message: On 6/10/13 7:36 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote: I think you err when you say this: A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an IESG member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free. In fact, you do know Russ. If you did not, then the above would be far closer to correct. But in reality you do know a lot more than you claim below. With overwhelming probability, your choice #2 applies and I'm very surprised you don't also think that. If it made a significant difference and I wasn't sure I'd ask Russ to clarify. For me, I read Russ' mail and I concluded he meant #2. And I'm confident in that conclusion. So I'm really bemused when you say that you don't know how to interpret Russ' mail. Let's separate out a few issues. There's what the message means itself, there's its usefulness and how much weight it should be given, and then there's what's problematic about it. I think you've conflated a few things. As you know, on the earlier message I called out on the IESG list, I guessed wrong that the sender was claiming choice #3 (that is, I thought, incorrectly, that the sender disagreed with a recent argument against publication, but simply didn't explain why). In fact in that case, not only wasn't it choice #4, it was also neither choice #1 (an implementer claiming implementation) nor choice #2 (an expert on the topic), my other two guesses, but rather a generally smart IETFer who thought the work seemed like a good idea. So I'm a little disinclined to guess on motives. In the case of Russ's message, I did guess it was choice #2, but I wasn't really sure. But let's separate what Russ meant from the weight it should be given. The message was that a person (let's presume with some expertise in the area) had read it. So what? Didn't this document go through a WG? Weren't a good bunch of experts already reading and reviewing this document? If this was during the WG discussion and the chairs solicited some final check reviews, *maybe* the message could have some use. But during IETF Last Call? Even if the message was sent because it was trying to say, I'm an expert on this stuff and it looks technically sound, is that going to change anything that the IESG should do about the document? I just think at Last Call, these statements of support are either harmless-but-useless or they are nefarious. Declaring that mail problematic also seems quite purist to me. I always find it amusing that when Stephen and I disagree, it's almost always because he presumes I want purity (and usually a new process), which I don't, and it seems to me that he wants no rules-of-thumb at all and that everything should be on a case-by-case basis. (I guess that means that I'm into purity, where Stephen has no principles. ;-) ) I think general principles are a fine thing, and we should try to stick to them, but I've got no interest in purity. The single piece of mail isn't problematic at all. As I said, probably harmless but useless. But the overall impression it gives *is* problematic. It encourages the view that we are voting, that a simple statement of support is important to our process. (What really set my hair on end was the I support publication bit. That always sounds like a vote for a new RFC. From Russ, I have a pretty good idea that he didn't mean it that way, but it's a poor formulation and not what we should be encouraging.) It also indicates that during Last Call, we want to hear that a document is getting reviewed. I would like to presume that documents get serious reviews in the WG, and that Last Call time is for people who haven't been participating in the WG to do a final check, letting us know if there's something *wrong*. If the document wasn't getting good review in the WG and needs statements of support at Last Call time, something has seriously failed earlier in the process. The chair or responsible AD should have been saying early on, Dear Expert, can you please have a read over this document and see if it's sane. Last Call is the wrong time for that to happen. This just encourages more of the tail-heavy process that we discussed earlier. At the same time I agree we do not want a procession of +1 mails. Right. And having senior members of the community doing so will encourage such behavior in the future. But then we won't get that for this draft. And if we did get that for any draft, some IETF participants (probably incl. you and I) would notice that and query it or object. I'd rather have all of us crusty folks model good behavior rather than having to complain about bad behavior later, especially when we'll get responses like,
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
Pete, On 12/06/2013 07:45, Pete Resnick wrote: It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that we're voting. Details below. Just to test what you are saying, let me ask the following. I will stipulate that a message that can be summarised accurately as +1 doesn't serve much purpose. How would you react to one that says something like: I've read the draft, and I've considered Joe Blow's objection, but I still support publication of the draft (*not followed by a reasoned rebuttal of Joe Blow's argument)? Brian
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote: It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. Well, this thread is surely evidence that you don't always get what you want. But more seriously, what are you expecting Russ to do? What did you want him to write? If your answer is Nothing, then how do you read IETF consensus for a document that gets no response in its Last Call? The XSF's stance is often It got nothing in Last Call, it shouldn't advance, which seems reasonable to me - I don't think defaulting to publication is right - certainly not in every case. My suggestion was simply to ask for what you want in the Last Call. But I imagine you could also just start an endless thread on an already overloaded list until someone guesses the answer. Dave.
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.netmailto:d...@cridland.net wrote: But more seriously, what are you expecting Russ to do? What did you want him to write? If your answer is Nothing, then how do you read IETF consensus for a document that gets no response in its Last Call? The XSF's stance is often It got nothing in Last Call, it shouldn't advance, which seems reasonable to me - I don't think defaulting to publication is right - certainly not in every case. My suggestion was simply to ask for what you want in the Last Call. I have a modest suggestion for you: read the rest of the message from Pete that you just replied to, in which he answers each of the questions you asked in your reply.
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 6/11/13 3:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Pete, On 12/06/2013 07:45, Pete Resnick wrote: It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that we're voting. Details below. Just to test what you are saying, let me ask the following. Oooo...I love a test. How would you react to one that says something like: I've read the draft, and I've considered Joe Blow's objection, but I still support publication of the draft (*not followed by a reasoned rebuttal of Joe Blow's argument)? I would be rather grumpy with such a message. If there's an outstanding (reasonable) objection to a document, I need to know why to consider that argument in the rough. I'd have to ask for more detail from the sender. If the response I get back is, I figured it was obvious why Joe Blow was full of crap, I'd ask, Then why did you bother posting? If the sender happens to be an expert (and Joe Blow is not), I'm still not going to take it at face value that Joe Blow is wrong. If I did, Joe would be well within rights to appeal because his argument got blown off. So, if you're saying something that is perfectly obvious, no need to say it. But if it's not perfectly obvious, I do want more text. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 06/11/2013 11:02 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume working groups are infallible, or more importantly not subject to the groupthink phenomenon. Otherwise what is IETF LC for? The IETF last call is for catching things the working group missed, not for rehashing arguments that were beaten to death in the working group. As I understand it cross-disciplinary review is also an important function of the IETF LC. It is certainly possible for a discussion in the working group to go one way, and then for the same discussion to come up in IETF last call and go the other way, because the experts on the topic were not included in the discussion, or because their advice was inappropriately ignored. Right ... for example the recent issue in regards to the potential deprecation of the SPF DNS RRtype. This does happen; unfortunately, when it happens it often doesn't get caught in IETF last call anyway. Then the process is faulty. :) I should also point out that when I mentioned groupthink in my message I was not doing so in a snarky and/or throwaway manner. The phenomenon is very real, and IETF WGs are an ideal breeding ground for it on several levels. It's _very_ easy for a group of humans to get into a mutual confirmation bias feedback loop, and although we generally do better on that point than a lot of groups would in similar circumstances, having people from outside the WG review documents provides (or should provide) a much-needed sanity check. In many ways having people from outside the group provide a well thought out review is _more_ valuable than the process of creating the document within the WG itself (although obviously we need to give proper credit for that creation). Doug
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: But more seriously, what are you expecting Russ to do? What did you want him to write? If your answer is Nothing, then how do you read IETF consensus for a document that gets no response in its Last Call? The XSF's stance is often It got nothing in Last Call, it shouldn't advance, which seems reasonable to me - I don't think defaulting to publication is right - certainly not in every case. My suggestion was simply to ask for what you want in the Last Call. I have a modest suggestion for you: read the rest of the message from Pete that you just replied to, in which he answers each of the questions you asked in your reply. If he did, either I am sufficiently stupid I cannot make it out, or he did so sufficiently obliquely that I can't see - depending on where you want to place the blame. Either way, I've tried to parse out potential responses (again), and the closest I can come (again) is that Pete seems to want nothing from Russ in this instance, and indeed, in any instance from any person except objections. This is not clear to me, however, and therefore I'd appreciate some clarification, which is why I asked. That in turn presumes we are defaulting to publication in all cases, and that in turn seems problematic to me, because his answers become, in order: a) Russ, and by extension anyone who supports the document's publication for whatever reason, is expected to do nothing. b) Russ, and by extension anyone who supports the document's publication for whatever reason, should write nothing. c) IETF-wide consensus is not judged here. IETF-wide apathy is IETF-wide consensus. My conclusion from that are: 1) Pete strongly supports publish-by-default. 2) Pete has his RFC 7000 sweepstake money on a much earlier date than I do. Dave.
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 6/11/2013 1:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote: As I understand it cross-disciplinary review is also an important function of the IETF LC. This gets at the reality that the current IETF uses processing phases rather more robustly than we used to. It certainly used to be that IETF LC was essentially a last chance for people with objections, but now it's a full round of broad reviews. It is, therefore, a real vetting phase by the larger community. As such, positive comments can be as valuable as negative, but of course only if they are backed with substance. Possibly contrary to Pete's stated preference, I'll suggest that statements of pure support -- backed up with substantive commentary -- can be useful, given the low level of activity and involvement many working groups currently show. To the extent that the IETF cares whether anyone beyond the authors care about the document, this shows that they do. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
RE: Last Call: draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07.txt (Adobe's Secure Real-Time Media Flow Protocol) to Informational RFC
hi SM. thanks for your comments. sorry for the delay in response; i was on vacation and unable to reply. replies inline. From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:13 AM At 09:12 28-05-2013, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Adobe's Secure Real-Time Media Flow Protocol' draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp-07.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-25. Exceptionally, comments may be The write-up mentions that: As a private protocol, no technical changes were performed on the protocol itself, but the authors disclosed more details in response to the WG discussions. I don't see why this specification requires IETF consensus as it is not possible to suggest any major changes. The explanation given for the intended status is that the aspects of the protocol protected by IPR were not reviewed externally. the intended status is Informational because the specification describes a protocol that was developed outside the IETF, the protocol is in widespread use in the Internet today, and may be of interest to the Internet community. the Shepherd write-up does not draw any connection (nor is there any connection) between the intended Informational status and the existence of IPR. aspects of the protocol that are protected by IPR are disclosed in the specification and are (and have been) available for the review of the community. the relevant IPR was disclosed (IPR 1942) immediately after draft -00 was submitted. my understanding of the A-D Sponsored process for an Informational track document is that the IETF Last Call should serve as a final check with the IETF community that there are no important concerns that have been missed or misunderstood. as this protocol and specification are not products of an IETF WG, technical changes to the protocol itself are not expected; however, the specification should be clear and complete enough that an independent and interoperable implementation could be created from it. i have received thorough and detailed feedback from several members of the community that i believe has helped me improve the quality and clarity of the specification. in the course of face-to-face discussion at IETF-86 in the TSVWG meeting, i was prompted to disclose additional detail and supplementary information about the protocol, which i believe improves the clarity of the specification. The summary is that there is a memo which is not a WG memo, which is supposed to have gained WG consensus, where some group is supposed to consider the IPR disclosure, and which is being Last-Called as an Individual Submission. I would like to be considered as not part of the consensus. the memo (and the protocol it describes) is not the product of a WG. the protocol was presented in person at IETF-77 (in the TSV Area meeting) and IETF-86 (in the TSVWG meeting), and feedback was solicited on the TSVWG and MMUSIC mailing lists. at this time i am not aware of any unaddressed concerns regarding this specification, with the exception of your following comment that i am about to address. Nits: At the time of writing, the Adobe Flash Player runtime is installed on more than one billion end-user desktop computers. Shouldn't the memo be about the protocol? agreed. i included this statement at the suggestion of the Responsible (and Sponsoring) Area Director, to help establish the breadth of deployment of the protocol, and therefore the relevance of the specification in the RFC Series as an independent submission. the Shepherd, A-D and i are discussing your concern regarding this statement off-list. possible solutions are: move this comment to the Shepherd write-up for the IESG's consideration, change the wording to be more neutral, leave as-is or strike it completely. Regards, -sm thanks. -michael thornburgh
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: That in turn presumes we are defaulting to publication in all cases, and that in turn seems problematic to me, because his answers become, in order: a) Russ, and by extension anyone who supports the document's publication for whatever reason, is expected to do nothing. b) Russ, and by extension anyone who supports the document's publication for whatever reason, should write nothing. c) IETF-wide consensus is not judged here. IETF-wide apathy is IETF-wide consensus. It is presumed that some degree of consensus to do the work of a working group existed when that working group was chartered; otherwise it would not have been chartered. When the working group reaches consensus to publish, therefore, it is assumed that the IETF has consensus to publish the document, because the IETF tasked the working group to go off and do its work, and the working group did it. Therefore, silence during IETF last call is not interpreted as apathy, but rather a lack of objection to the completion of a process that the IETF chose to embark on and that the IETF has brought to completion, through the instrument of the working group that produced the document. This is in fact how consensus is evaluated during IETF last call. If you think it should be done differently, write up a document and get IETF consensus on it, and we can change the procedure to whatever you think it should be. Maybe it would be an improvement.
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 10/06/13 21:37, Pete Resnick wrote: Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the IETF list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the entire contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call request: On 6/10/13 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote: I have read the document, I a support publication on the standards track. Russ Pete, I write gen-art reviews. A proportion of them at IETF Last Call, give or take a bunch of boilerplate, consist of the word 'Ready'*. How do you distinguish the usefulness (or otherwise) of such a review from Russ' one liner? /Elwyn * and some of the others say 'Not ready' followed by some or many lines of comments.
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: It is presumed that some degree of consensus to do the work of a working group existed when that working group was chartered; otherwise it would not have been chartered. When the working group reaches consensus to publish, therefore, it is assumed that the IETF has consensus to publish the document, because the IETF tasked the working group to go off and do its work, and the working group did it. Therefore, silence during IETF last call is not interpreted as apathy, but rather a lack of objection to the completion of a process that the IETF chose to embark on and that the IETF has brought to completion, through the instrument of the working group that produced the document. This is in fact how consensus is evaluated during IETF last call. That's interesting - judging by the messages on this thread, there doesn't appear to be a strong consensus on this... If you think it should be done differently, write up a document and get IETF consensus on it, and we can change the procedure to whatever you think it should be. Maybe it would be an improvement. ... and how would we judge IETF consensus on a document that doesn't get done under a charter (which would in turn have been granted consensus without any IETF comments?)
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.netmailto:d...@cridland.net wrote: ... and how would we judge IETF consensus on a document that doesn't get done under a charter (which would in turn have been granted consensus without any IETF comments?) I would expect that you'd start with a mailing list, see if there is interest, come up with a proposal for a BOF, come up with a working group charter, get IESG review on the charter, then get IETF consensus on the charter, and then start working on the document. That's how it's usually done. BTW, the fact that a few people think the process ought to work differently does not mean there is consensus for it to work differently. Also, what there may not be consensus on among the people who have weighed in on the topic is whether positive statements in favor of a document are relevant in IETF last call, but I don't really know how to reduce that to practice, because in reality I think it is rare for a quorum of IETF participants to read a document as a consequence of a last call announcement. Without that, I don't see how you can have any other last call process than the one we currently have.
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-pkix-est-07.txt (Enrollment over Secure Transport) to Proposed Standard
On 6/11/13 4:30 AM, SM wrote: At 07:45 10-06-2013, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509) WG (pkix) to consider the following document: - 'Enrollment over Secure Transport' draft-ietf-pkix-est-07.txt as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-06-24. Exceptionally, comments may be There weren't any comments during the WGLC of draft-ietf-pkix-est-06. The AD review of draft-ietf-pkix-est-06 was posted to the mailing list and the only comments after that was this version address my concerns. PKIX is closing down; this is the final draft. Has the wg lost a bit of its furor yes. Mostly, the way things have worked in the recent past is that either people are for something and have some nice conversations about this or that improvement and wglc is quiet or people think the world is ending by publishing a draft and they object during authoring, wglc, and ietf lc. This one falls in to the earlier bucket. I read the document. It is about the use of an obsolete Proposed Standard or later versions of that specification. This bit I don't agree with. PKCS#10 is the way most PKI enrollments occur. RFC 2986, which is where PKCS#10 is documented, is updated by RFC 5967 because the draft that contained the media-type registration was obsoleted. This draft is a nod to the fact that PKCS#10 is the way it's done and it's one via the web (not email) with TLS as the secure transport (not S/MIME/CMS). The kicker here is that it's actually been implemented and not just by the authors. As for the TLS version, well I'm hoping 1.1 will be overtaken by events in short order but that compromise has been worked out and documented in a number of drafts. The comments from three individuals who happen to be Area Directors creates a conundrum; should I give more weight to them or to a content-free comment? I do not support the publication of this document as a Proposed Standard as it is doubtful that it has the consensus of the working group. There has been discussion about this draft on the list albeit not much. Definitely discussions at the meetings where it's been an agenda topic at IETF 82, 83, 85, and 86. spt
Re: Content-free Last Call comments
Right. We've had some issues with document quality, and I can think of several documents that sailed through WG last call and should not have. there was a doc with which i had a small, but non trivial, issue. the author and the wg did not think it worthwhile. i did not want to argue endlessly, so i waited and raised it to the iesg at last call, and they understood it instantly. the author made the small change to the doc. i said thank you. i am sure we can make a constitutional crisis over this if we have too much time on our hands. randy
Document Action: 'Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-14.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Routing for IPv4-embedded IPv6 Packets' (draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing-14.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the Open Shortest Path First IGP Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Stewart Bryant and Adrian Farrel. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-ipv4-embedded-ipv6-routing/ Technical Summary This document describes routing packets destined to IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses across an IPv6 core using OSPFv3 with a separate routing table. Working Group Summary Although presented at multiple IETFs, the draft did not generate a lot of comments. At one point, it included changes to the OSPFv3 protocol due to the suggestion that the IPv4 domains could be abstracted as OSPFv3 areas. This was discarded due to the complexity and the fact that it was above and beyond the RFC 5838 mechanisms. Document Quality The document has gone through several WG review cycles and revisions. Comments were received from some WG members as well as the chair of the BEHAVE WG. To the best of my knowledge, there are no implementations. We also WG last called the draft in the BEHAVE WG and received some comments from Brian Carpenter relative to positioning the draft with other IPv4-IPv6 transition mechanisms. The latest version of the draft clarifies this. Personnel Acee Lindem is the document shepherd and Stewart Bryant is the responsible AD.
New Non-WG Mailing List: posh -- Discussion about PKIX Over Secure HTTP
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. List address: p...@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/posh/ To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/posh Purpose: Discussion about PKIX Over Secure HTTP, a method for secure delegation of application services and retrieval of end-entity certificates over HTTPS. For additional information, please contact the list administrators.
