Re: Network Working Group
Fred, This is a far more satisfying topic than nomcom process or working group (non)productivity. Or perhaps it is more useful, since it can serve as a bit of a reminder about our scope. The nice thing about the NWG label is that it is so generic, nothing ties it to the original ARPA team(s) or the later IP development team. I've occasionally wondered at the wasted space on the page. The fact that it is invariant means that it contains no information. However the historical utility is that it suggests (to me at last) that there is a group continuity, and it identifies the document as part of a 33-year history of evolving effort. In effect, it rather completely means that the series is NOT about the original contributors, but about a class of contributions. One might or might not believe that the noise level of the series has improved (or deteriorated), but the nature of the series has been pretty consistent. d/ Monday, March 10, 2003, 3:16:45 PM, you wrote: FB 40 years ago a group of researchers was funded by DARPA to study FB packet-based communications, one part of which was the Network Working FB Group. Part of this group has since become the IRTF's End2End Research FB Group, and the rest of the functions have devolved on the IAB and the IETF. FB The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20 FB years. FB I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The FB world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date FB themselves. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA USA tel:+1.408.246.8253, fax:+1.866.358.5301
Re: Network Working Group
Sounds like an argument for having WG/mailing-list info in or near the Authors Address section. Thanks, Donald On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, John Stracke wrote: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:24:28 -0500 From: John Stracke [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Network Working Group Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote: I sometimes put the working group name on drafts also. But an RFC is never issued by a working group. It is issued by the I* after IESG review and usually after IETF Last Call. I'm dubious about putting the WG name in the RFC but if that were done, As a practical matter, if one wants to find people to discuss an RFC with, knowing what WG it came from (if any) can save steps. The authors' addresses are included, of course, but those sometimes go stale before the WG closes down.
Re: Network Working Group
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 12:16:45PM -0800, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves. I stopped using it on drafts a few years ago. I use the relevant WG.
Re: Network Working Group
At 01:27 PM 3/10/2003 -0800, Bob Braden wrote: The archive of early NWG discussions is the RFC series itself. I started to reply saying that, but I think he's referring to a pointer to the working group's discussions. A pointer to the working group's discussions??? NWG could be replaced by IETF or ISOC, but... Are you all assuming that individuals can not submit RFCs? Masataka Ohta
Re: Network Working Group
I sometimes put the working group name on drafts also. But an RFC is never issued by a working group. It is issued by the I* after IESG review and usually after IETF Last Call. I'm dubious about putting the WG name in the RFC but if that were done, it shouldn't be more than an interior footnote. Thanks, Donald == Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [EMAIL PROTECTED] 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Scott W Brim wrote: Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:17:05 -0500 From: Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Network Working Group On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 12:16:45PM -0800, Fred Baker allegedly wrote: I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves. I stopped using it on drafts a few years ago. I use the relevant WG.
Re: Network Working Group
Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote: I sometimes put the working group name on drafts also. But an RFC is never issued by a working group. It is issued by the I* after IESG review and usually after IETF Last Call. I'm dubious about putting the WG name in the RFC but if that were done, As a practical matter, if one wants to find people to discuss an RFC with, knowing what WG it came from (if any) can save steps. The authors' addresses are included, of course, but those sometimes go stale before the WG closes down. -- /\ |John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com | |Centive |My opinions are my own. | || |Diplomacy: The art of letting someone else have your way| \/
Re: Network Working Group
Bob Braden wrote: * Perhaps with a pointer to where the archived discussions of the working * group might be found? The archive of early NWG discussions is the RFC series itself. The other archives, which no doubt existed, were written on DEC tapes, IBM 360 mainframe files, etc. Not too useful today. I believe he meant for new documents. I'm not sure, of course, since he put his comments at the start of his reply instead of alongside the quoted text he was referring to. -- /==\ |John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com | |Centive |My opinions are my own.| |==| |Who died and made you king? My father.| \==/
Network Working Group
From your draft IESG Charter: Network Working Group 40 years ago a group of researchers was funded by DARPA to study packet-based communications, one part of which was the Network Working Group. Part of this group has since become the IRTF's End2End Research Group, and the rest of the functions have devolved on the IAB and the IETF. The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20 years. I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves.
RE: Network Working Group
I totally support your suggestion. I think it is best if the RFCs mention the specific name of the WG that created them instead. -Shahram -Original Message- From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:17 PM To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Network Working Group From your draft IESG Charter: Network Working Group 40 years ago a group of researchers was funded by DARPA to study packet-based communications, one part of which was the Network Working Group. Part of this group has since become the IRTF's End2End Research Group, and the rest of the functions have devolved on the IAB and the IETF. The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20 years. I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves.
RE: Network Working Group
Perhaps with a pointer to where the archived discussions of the working group might be found? [Yes, I know that archives are ephemeral. But surely we could get archive.org or someone to change that?] On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Shahram Davari wrote: I totally support your suggestion. I think it is best if the RFCs mention the specific name of the WG that created them instead. -Shahram -Original Message- From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:17 PM To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Network Working Group From your draft IESG Charter: Network Working Group 40 years ago a group of researchers was funded by DARPA to study packet-based communications, one part of which was the Network Working Group. Part of this group has since become the IRTF's End2End Research Group, and the rest of the functions have devolved on the IAB and the IETF. The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20 years. I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves. -- Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm --It's warm here.--
RE: Network Working Group
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 10 13:18:29 2003 * Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:14:33 -0500 (EST) * From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] * To: Shahram Davari [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Cc: 'Fred Baker' [EMAIL PROTECTED], *Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: RE: Network Working Group * MIME-Version: 1.0 * X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1 * * Perhaps with a pointer to where the archived discussions of the working * group might be found? * The archive of early NWG discussions is the RFC series itself. The other archives, which no doubt existed, were written on DEC tapes, IBM 360 mainframe files, etc. Not too useful today. Bob Braden
Re: Network Working Group
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Fred Baker wrote: From your draft IESG Charter: Network Working Group ... I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves. From 2223bis, section 4.1: Please see the front page of this memo for an example of the front page heading. On the first page there is no running header. The top of the first page has the following items left justified: Network Working Group This traditional title must be left-justified on the first line of the heading. It denoted the ARPANET research group that founded the RFC series. The place to change this would be 2223bis, not in the IESG charter draft. If you change it in 2223bis, the RFC Editor will change it everywhere else :-) Not that I am advocating changing it -- I don't care either way. Kireeti.
RE: Network Working Group
At 01:27 PM 3/10/2003 -0800, Bob Braden wrote: The archive of early NWG discussions is the RFC series itself. I started to reply saying that, but I think he's referring to a pointer to the working group's discussions. Personally, if I were to do anything like that, I would point to the working group's charter, which in turn points to the archive and discussion list, and gives context. But I'm not certain that is necessary if one knows how to find the IETF and its web page.
RE: Network Working Group
Fred Baker wrote: Network Working Group The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20 years. I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves. Fred, I'd respectfully like to disagree. I believe the Network Working Group tag represents the continuity in Internet engineering and documentation that follows continuously from Steve Crocker's RFC 1 (written April 1969 in a dry bathtub, I believe, so as not to wake the friends he was staying with) down to the latest RFCs and I-Ds. I'm not sure that I'm a good enough engineer to have been involved with the original Network Working Group, but I'm honored to participate in the design tradition (especially the open publication of informational and standards documents, rough consensus, working code, etc.) that that label represents. - dan -- Dan Kohn mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankohn.com/ tel:+1-650-327-2600
Re: Network Working Group
Mind! I don't mean to say that I know of my own knowledge what relevance there is to the text string that appears in the upper left corner of the first page of every RFC. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard that as a place to put something useful such as the IETF working group name. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the RFC header boilerplate; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Internet's done for. You will, therefore, permit me to repeat, emphatically, that this is a document of the Network Working Group. [excerpted from a previous debate on this subject a few years back, with apologies to the ghost of Charles Dickens]
RE: Network Working Group
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 10 14:11:52 2003 * X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:03:31 -0800 * To: Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] * From: Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: RE: Network Working Group * Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Mime-Version: 1.0 * X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1 * * At 01:27 PM 3/10/2003 -0800, Bob Braden wrote: * The archive of early NWG discussions is the RFC series itself. * * I started to reply saying that, but I think he's referring to a pointer to * the working group's discussions. * There are minutes of a number of key meetings recorded in RFCs. EG more than you ever wanted to know about how FTP or Telnet or NCP came about!
Re: Network Working Group
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:59:28 PST, Bob Braden said: There are minutes of a number of key meetings recorded in RFCs. EG more than you ever wanted to know about how FTP or Telnet or NCP came about! Any in particular you'd nominate for cautionary tale status? ;) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
