Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
The Call for Review has been extended to 4 July 2013. Please send comment to iab (at) iab.org or enter a ticket in TRAC. A new ticket can be entered: - using http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iab/trac/newticket - select the component of /home/ietf/id/draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt On behalf of the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair On Jun 5, 2013, at 2:50 PM, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc4441rev/ The Call for Review will last until 20 June 2013. Please send comments to i...@iab.org. On behalf of the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair
Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
The Call for Review has been extended to 4 July 2013. Please send comment to iab (at) iab.org or enter a ticket in TRAC. A new ticket can be entered: - using http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iab/trac/newticket - select the component of /home/ietf/id/draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt On behalf of the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair On Jun 5, 2013, at 2:50 PM, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc4441rev/ The Call for Review will last until 20 June 2013. Please send comments to i...@iab.org. On behalf of the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair
RE: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
Hi Steve, We shall ask the question, but I can already guess the answers. Current IEEE rules (copyright rules I think) do not allow for sharing of work-in-progress drafts with no access control. You need to be a participant of some sort in order to access such documents, and this validated by the fact that you know the username/password combination. These are IEEE, beyond the power of IEEE 802 to change. As a chair who dealt with this for a number of years in the past I can bear witness that this is not a huge task. The IEEE 802 entrusts the chair with the username and password to access IEEE 802 WG documents. The IETF WG chair from time to time will forward this information on a per request basis to IETF participants who need access to the IEEE 802 documents. Regards, Dan -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:13 PM To: IAB Chair Cc: IAB; IETF Subject: Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship A couple of minor comments: - For some unfathomable reason IEEE people seem to call mailing lists reflectors - that might be worth a mention. Section 4 otherwise seems repetitive. - 3.3.1.4 says: Since it is possible to participate in IETF without attending meetings, or even joining a mailing list, IETF WG chairs will provide the information to anyone who requests it. However, since IEEE 802 work-in-progress is copyrighted, incorporating material into IETF documents or posting the username/password on mailing lists or websites is not permitted. That's a pretty bogus setup. I would think that if IEEE do want to share some or all drafts with us they could much more easily create a web page when those drafts are available without access control. Or we could if they didn't mind. (Or I could do it if there's no we that wants to:-) Asking IETF WG chairs to deal with passwords is a bit silly. I'm not objecting to this, but am suggesting someone ask IEEE if they'd like to consider the silliness here and fix it. S. On 06/05/2013 07:50 PM, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc4441rev/ The Call for Review will last until 20 June 2013. Please send comments to i...@iab.org. On behalf of the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair
Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
A couple of minor comments: - For some unfathomable reason IEEE people seem to call mailing lists reflectors - that might be worth a mention. Section 4 otherwise seems repetitive. - 3.3.1.4 says: Since it is possible to participate in IETF without attending meetings, or even joining a mailing list, IETF WG chairs will provide the information to anyone who requests it. However, since IEEE 802 work-in-progress is copyrighted, incorporating material into IETF documents or posting the username/password on mailing lists or websites is not permitted. That's a pretty bogus setup. I would think that if IEEE do want to share some or all drafts with us they could much more easily create a web page when those drafts are available without access control. Or we could if they didn't mind. (Or I could do it if there's no we that wants to:-) Asking IETF WG chairs to deal with passwords is a bit silly. I'm not objecting to this, but am suggesting someone ask IEEE if they'd like to consider the silliness here and fix it. S. On 06/05/2013 07:50 PM, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc4441rev/ The Call for Review will last until 20 June 2013. Please send comments to i...@iab.org. On behalf of the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair
RE: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
Asking IETF WG chairs to deal with passwords is a bit silly. Maybe they could be emailed a monthly reminder of their personal subscription password on the first of each month. 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: 06 June 2013 14:12 To: IAB Chair Cc: IAB; IETF Subject: Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship A couple of minor comments: - For some unfathomable reason IEEE people seem to call mailing lists reflectors - that might be worth a mention. Section 4 otherwise seems repetitive. - 3.3.1.4 says: Since it is possible to participate in IETF without attending meetings, or even joining a mailing list, IETF WG chairs will provide the information to anyone who requests it. However, since IEEE 802 work-in-progress is copyrighted, incorporating material into IETF documents or posting the username/password on mailing lists or websites is not permitted. That's a pretty bogus setup. I would think that if IEEE do want to share some or all drafts with us they could much more easily create a web page when those drafts are available without access control. Or we could if they didn't mind. (Or I could do it if there's no we that wants to:-) Asking IETF WG chairs to deal with passwords is a bit silly. I'm not objecting to this, but am suggesting someone ask IEEE if they'd like to consider the silliness here and fix it. S. On 06/05/2013 07:50 PM, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc4441rev/ The Call for Review will last until 20 June 2013. Please send comments to i...@iab.org. On behalf of the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair
RE: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
At 20:01 05-06-2013, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: RFC2031 documented the takeover. Snuck through on informational... It's part of the poorly documented historical facts which happened after some IETF financial woes. I read draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04 again. Section 1 mentions that: This version of the document responds to comments received during IAB Last Call. I would have expected the IAB to catch issues which are related to the IETF. Section 3.1.4 lists Balance between mailing lists and meetings as a cultural difference. The last sentence in the paragraph: Attendance at meetings is critical to influencing decisions and to maintaining membership voting rights. sums up a major difference. It could be said that a standard setting organization is dominated by interest groups (see RFC 6852) which can afford the air travel if major decisions are made during a plenary or interim meetings. In Section 3.3.1.4: However, since IEEE 802 work-in-progress is copyrighted, incorporating material into IETF documents or posting The above does not describe correctly why it is not possible to incorporate the material. It could mention that due to copyright restrictions, incorporating materials into IETF documents or postings is not allowed. In Section 3.3.1.5: IEEE 802 standards, once approved, are published and made available for sale. This could be a cultural difference. RFC 6852 glosses over that (see Standards specifications are made accessible to all for implementation and deployment.) BTW, the draft could be made shorter by incorporating the relevant topics by reference instead of describing them in the draft. RFC 6756 has a better layout in my opinion. RFC 4441 describes the policies and procedures that have developed in order to coordinate between the IETF and IEEE 802. draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04 mentions that it describes the standardization collaboration between the IETF and IEEE 802. The result looks like a Taoesque mix of IETF and IEEE 802 material. Why is it important to explain the IAB responsibilities? Why is it important to explain IESG and IAB member appointments? What does cross-referencing documents have to do with the relationship? I suggest looking at the draft while taking the above (non-exhaustive) list of questions into consideration. The details of the collaboration, e.g. how to get a password, can be documented through a Wiki. The IEEE does a decent job of documenting its standards document lifecycle; it's less convoluted than the IETF. The relevant URL is not mentioned in the draft. The draft lists analogies between the IETF and IEEE 802 whereas the reality is that the two organizations operate differently. The details of that is written as politically appropriate version of reality. Regards, -sm
RE: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
In Section 3.3.1.5: IEEE 802 standards, once approved, are published and made available for sale. This could be a cultural difference. RFC 6852 glosses over that (see Standards specifications are made accessible to all for implementation and deployment.) IEEE 802 standards are made more-or-less freely available (you have to agree to terms of use online) after a period of 6 months from publication. Details are here: http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/. -Peter
Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
On 6/6/2013 8:12 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: - 3.3.1.4 says: Since it is possible to participate in IETF without attending meetings, or even joining a mailing list, IETF WG chairs will provide the information to anyone who requests it. However, since IEEE 802 work-in-progress is copyrighted, incorporating material into IETF documents or posting the username/password on mailing lists or websites is not permitted. That's a pretty bogus setup. I would think that if IEEE do want to share some or all drafts with us they could much more easily create a web page when those drafts are available without access control. Or we could if they didn't mind. (Or I could do it if there's no we that wants to:-) Asking IETF WG chairs to deal with passwords is a bit silly. I'm not objecting to this, but am suggesting someone ask IEEE if they'd like to consider the silliness here and fix it. Hi, Stephen, It's probably worth pointing out to the community that both IETF and IEEE 802 leadership have been looking at previous revisions and asking if they do that, should we do the same? The most recent case I can think of was that IETF published a list of its liaison managers, while IEEE 802 did not - but review discussions prompted iEEE 802 to start publishing a list of its liaison managers as well. There have been others. I'd be pleasantly surprised if either organization has run out of bogosity to fix, of course ;-) Spencer
Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
At 11:50 05-06-2013, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. In Section 1: This document contains a set of principles and guidelines that serves as the basis for establishing collaboration between Project 802 of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 802) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) of the Internet Society (ISOC) Is the IETF a task force of the Internet Society? In Section 3.1.2: 4. Appointment of RFC Series and Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) roles What is the meaning of IANA roles in the above? In Section 3.1.4 Voting: Both organizations use voting as a decision-making tool, but IEEE 802 uses voting within working groups, while IETF working groups do not use voting. Working group chairs may ask for a show of hands or take a hum to judge backing for a proposal, but this is not considered to be voting - The IESG does ballot documents when considering them for publication. This balloting is a final approval for publication. The first part of the text says that the IETF uses voting whereas the hum is not considered as voting. Decision-making might be a better label. Regards, -sm
Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
Reply to your request dated 05.06.2013 Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun Dated 06.06.2013 The I-D: draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04 A1 Comments: Overall Overall, why does the document start with IEEE before IETF. If this is a document produced by us as IETF, we need to focus on the relationship of OUR organisation first with others. So IMHO, it should say in the title: The IETF/ IEEE 802 Relationship. Within all the document I recommend we follow that focus on the relationship between the IETF and IEEE 802. In the sections I recommend to start with IETF not IEEE802. Furthermore, the title just says relationship, it is not enough title, what kind of relationship you are doing? The word relationship is not mentioned in the Abstract at all which I expected that. ABchange please amend the title to : The IETF and IEEE 802 Collaboration Relationship. Why the I-D does not reference a normative reference from IEEE that also states the relationship between IEEE802 / IETF, or is there no document procedure for the other party? Each IETF and IEEE802 should have their own terminology in this I-D, there is some mixing which confuses, example ballot used in IEEE802 but the I-D uses it for IETF as well (please change). Are we ignoring our other terminologies of IETF procedure. Section 3.1.4 Cultural differences AB there is missing culture issue which is the opennes, is the IEEE 802 open for access. Culture does not mean only how and when making decisions, the culture is about interacting with the COMMUNITY. I am not sure about the domain of the IEEE802 community, but know the IETF community. AB ADD please describe in this section the communities and access policy to each organisation body (WG, Working task, etc). Best Regards AB + On 6/5/13, IAB Chair iab-ch...@iab.org wrote: This is a call for review of The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc4441rev/ The Call for Review will last until 20 June 2013. Please send comments to i...@iab.org. On behalf of the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair
Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
I want to discuss this issue of collaboration if I get a response/permission. How can the IETF participant collaborate with IEEE 802 memebr/participant? From the I-D I see that the IETF participant NEEDs the IETF WG chair to do that, but the IEEE 802 participant does not need any chair. Are we collaborating at all levels as management and participants, or are we collaborating at management only from one organisation and at other levels at the other organisation (no equal opportunities)? I RECOMMEND that this I-D reconsiders the collaboration and leave it between managements of both organisations, as long as one of the organisation is collaborating mostly at management. If we don't discuss and only review, there may be a misunderstandning between community and the author. Regards AB On 6/5/13, IAB Chair iab-ch...@iab.org wrote: This is a call for review of The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. The document is available for inspection here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc4441rev/ The Call for Review will last until 20 June 2013. Please send comments to i...@iab.org. On behalf of the IAB, Russ Housley IAB Chair
RE: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship
Is the IETF a task force of the Internet Society? RFC2031 documented the takeover. Snuck through on informational... Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM [s...@resistor.net] Sent: 06 June 2013 02:07 To: i...@iab.org Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship At 11:50 05-06-2013, IAB Chair wrote: This is a call for review of The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC. In Section 1: This document contains a set of principles and guidelines that serves as the basis for establishing collaboration between Project 802 of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 802) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) of the Internet Society (ISOC) Is the IETF a task force of the Internet Society? In Section 3.1.2: 4. Appointment of RFC Series and Internet Assigned Number Authority (IANA) roles What is the meaning of IANA roles in the above? In Section 3.1.4 Voting: Both organizations use voting as a decision-making tool, but IEEE 802 uses voting within working groups, while IETF working groups do not use voting. Working group chairs may ask for a show of hands or take a hum to judge backing for a proposal, but this is not considered to be voting - The IESG does ballot documents when considering them for publication. This balloting is a final approval for publication. The first part of the text says that the IETF uses voting whereas the hum is not considered as voting. Decision-making might be a better label. Regards, -sm
