Re: text suggested by ADs
This is a combined response to a number of messages under the same subject field: Ralph Droms wrote: ... Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open mailing lists during last calls, to make sure their technical input is on the same footing as everyone else's technical input. I agree that the IESG's job is to ensure correctness, completeness, etc. That feedback should be provided earlier, in an open forum. That doesn't scale, since all ADs are at least in theory supposed to look at all drafts that land on the IESG's table. They will only be able to engage earlier (pre and during Last Call) in a very small fraction of cases. As long as the IESG is the back-stop, there *will* be late feedback - it's inevitable. Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: ... Once again we come back to one of the core problems with the IETF processes being a complete lack of information on the Web site. That's hyperbole, but we are very much aware that the web site needs a rethink. And we're also aware that that is a costly and complex process. John Loughney wrote: Bill, When is a DISCUSS not a discuss? When it is a You have to fix this and I'm holding a DISCUSS until it's fixed. I've seen variations on there as a draft editor and it's not always clear. In the past, this has been an issue with ADs who have not engaged the WG. It helps to have an explanation of the DISCUSS. Somewhat oversimplifying, I think you will find two types of DISCUSS in the tracker: 1. Problems that need fixing, are fairly easy to fix, and most people will agree on the fix once it is pointed out. These very often get fixed very quickly - quite possibly during the week between the document being placed on the IESG agenda and the time of the telechat - and cause little pain. 2. Problems whose validity and/or solution is contentious. Unless you want to remove the IESG's role as a back-stop, there is no painless way to resolve these. Somebody is going to have change their mind. I can only agree with those who say that open discussion is the best way to deal with these cases. It's the document shepherd, I think, who has to make sure that discussion happens ASAP. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Margaret Wasserman wrote: (1) When an AD has an open discuss that he or she does not clear during the telechat, he or she could send a copy of that discuss to the WG mailing list directly. This is quite direct, but might be a bit tricky in practice due to spam filters, etc. because the AD may not be a member of the mailing list in question. It is also more likely to suffer from human error or omission, because the tracker is set-up to show us the documents for which we are responsible AD, not those for which we currently hold discusses. - or - (2) After the document appears on a telechat, the responsible AD could send any remaining IESG discusses and comments to the WG mailing list (probably in a single message), cc:ing the ADs who entered those discusses or comments. I sometimes do this already, and it typically seems to work well. [] Both of these are problematic, because they add more work to people on the IESG. I'd support the document shepherd (NOT either shepherding AD or the AD writing the discuss) being responsible for initiating the dialogue. If the comments by different ADs don't overlap, each AD's comments should be discussed separately. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On 5/9/05, Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More direct communication with individual ADs (especially ADs from other areas who do have comments on what a WG has produced) would hopefully also reduce the number of myths about IESG/AD operations. Indeed. Of course, the idea of having someone in the middle is really that they will *facilitate* the discussion, so maybe we can find a way to keep both aspects - direct communication and facilitation. On 5/9/05, John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When is a DISCUSS not a discuss? When it is a You have to fix this and I'm holding a DISCUSS until it's fixed. I've seen variations on there as a draft editor and it's not always clear. Well, for things like This misuses MIME in a way that will cause problems in the future or This type of security has known flaws and it would be better to go this other way, yes, it tends to be fix this, period. These are the backstop issues that Brian mentioned (that the IESG would rather get out of the business of catching). It helps to have an explanation of the DISCUSS. Certainly. In theory, a DISCUSS without an explanation is not valid, and I think the IESG has worked hard in the last couple of years to provide actual reasons for DISCUSSes. As you may know from a few IETF plenaries, I've been collecting various bits of data; of the 475 DISCUSS evaluations in my database (which, it turns out, includes some that have been resolved; I have to update my data collection methodology), only one has no text associated with it, and that one is one of the ones associated with the buggy methodology, i.e., has been resolved. (Of course, my database has no idea if the text that's there is relevant or useful, but at least we're above the lowest hurdle) Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
Bill, I think this can often be the reason why WG's get frustrated an unhappy with IESG feedback. I agree with you that #1 can be desirable, but how often are there so many discuss comments that handling them individually would be a mess? The problem we get from channelling all discuss comments through the responsible AD is that the discussing AD(s) is(are) hidden behind an extra abstraction layer, adding extra delay (as the responsible AD has to get time to summarize and hopefully capture comments well), and also increasing the risk for misinterpretations of what the comment(s) was(were) really about. So, although I see the point with #1, I believe the problem you have identified with the current scheme is real, and we should try to do something about it. More direct communication with individual ADs (especially ADs from other areas who do have comments on what a WG has produced) would hopefully also reduce the number of myths about IESG/AD operations. To a certain degree, ADs should feel responsible for making sure their own discuss comments are addressed and cleared. It should be in the interest of all involved parts to make it happen as quickly and smoothly as possible (to avoid having to re-read document over and over again but instead get closure on them). Rgds, /L-E -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bill Fenner Sent: den 8 maj 2005 19:51 To: Dave Crocker Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: text suggested by ADs On 5/7/05, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it. Dave, From my point of view, there are two assumptions that the IESG makes in this situation: 1) Since the responsible AD (or PROTO shepherd) is more familiar with the working group / document / other work / etc, they will be able to more effectively communicate the concerns. 2) The AD that registered the DISCUSS is always willing to actually have a discussion directly with the WG or authors if necessary. However, I think that the community tends to see instead: 1) The discussing AD is hiding behind a shield 2) The discussing AD isn't willing to communicate with the WG I've certainly seen responses to discusses that I've filed come back as Well, I don't think this is reasonable, but I've made this change to satisfy the IESG, even though I would have been willing to have the discussion and yield to the WG's/authors' opinion. I do think that #1 is solving a real problem - I'm pretty sure that WGs/authors would rather get one message summarizing all of the IESG's issues rather than 10 messages from different individuals that might have overlapping issues, etc. However, if it's perpetuating the myth that ADs aren't willing to talk to the WGs/authors, we need to do *something* about it. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Spencer - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow Spencer posting by non-members That's a violation of policy. Please see the IESG statement on spam policy; someone needs to be approving non-member postings for IETF working group lists. allow posting without manual intervention - the mailing lists I've administered for IETF had two settings, allow posting by non-members and hold postings by non-members for approval. What I was trying to say was, this is probably sufficient for first feedback, but probably not sufficient for actually discussing a DISCUSS comment. True, but as the mailing list administrator you can choose to add senders to the accepts-filter when their first posting is approved, that should solve the problem, right? /L-E ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Bill, When is a DISCUSS not a discuss? When it is a You have to fix this and I'm holding a DISCUSS until it's fixed. I've seen variations on there as a draft editor and it's not always clear. In the past, this has been an issue with ADs who have not engaged the WG. It helps to have an explanation of the DISCUSS. John The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief. --- original message --- Subject:Re: text suggested by ADs Sender: Bill Fenner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 05/08/2005 7:51 pm On 5/7/05, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it. Dave, From my point of view, there are two assumptions that the IESG makes in this situation: 1) Since the responsible AD (or PROTO shepherd) is more familiar with the working group / document / other work / etc, they will be able to more effectively communicate the concerns. 2) The AD that registered the DISCUSS is always willing to actually have a discussion directly with the WG or authors if necessary. However, I think that the community tends to see instead: 1) The discussing AD is hiding behind a shield 2) The discussing AD isn't willing to communicate with the WG I've certainly seen responses to discusses that I've filed come back as Well, I don't think this is reasonable, but I've made this change to satisfy the IESG, even though I would have been willing to have the discussion and yield to the WG's/authors' opinion. I do think that #1 is solving a real problem - I'm pretty sure that WGs/authors would rather get one message summarizing all of the IESG's issues rather than 10 messages from different individuals that might have overlapping issues, etc. However, if it's perpetuating the myth that ADs aren't willing to talk to the WGs/authors, we need to do *something* about it. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
Exactly. If the ad is not a member of the mailing list and the wg chair blocks mails from an ad, them the wg has bigger problems than DISCUSSes on drafts. John The good thing about mobile email is that t9 forces you to be brief. --- original message --- Subject:RE: text suggested by ADs Sender: Lars-Erik Jonsson \(LU/EAB\) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 05/09/2005 1:43 pm Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Spencer - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow Spencer posting by non-members That's a violation of policy. Please see the IESG statement on spam policy; someone needs to be approving non-member postings for IETF working group lists. allow posting without manual intervention - the mailing lists I've administered for IETF had two settings, allow posting by non-members and hold postings by non-members for approval. What I was trying to say was, this is probably sufficient for first feedback, but probably not sufficient for actually discussing a DISCUSS comment. True, but as the mailing list administrator you can choose to add senders to the accepts-filter when their first posting is approved, that should solve the problem, right? /L-E ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On 7 maj 2005, at 21.32, Dave Crocker wrote: Let me try the simplest summary possible: If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it. Authority always comes with responsibility. In this case it should simply be that the authority to block a group has a responsibility to interact with that group. Directly. Seems eminently reasonable to me. Even seems practical not to mention good professional etiquette. I find it hard to understand why an AD would not behave this way (though I know it is not the common practice). I have always felt that authority entailed obligations and responsibility. And the more power a position has the more constrained the holder of that position should be in his or her behavior. a. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Hi Dave, Let me try the simplest summary possible: If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it. Authority always comes with responsibility. In this case it should simply be that the authority to block a group has a responsibility to interact with that group. Directly. This seems pretty reasonable to me, and I think that this is one of the reasons why the IESG (pre-me) chose to implement the I-D tracker. I agree that it might be even better to generate mail to the WG mailing list (some folks may read the list but not follow documents in the tracker), but I'm not sure about the best way to implement this... The most common place where I personally block and/or delay a WG document is AD Review. I only issue discusses on a small fraction of the documents that come to the IESG, but I return AD review comments (blocking or non-blocking) on a much higher fraction of the documents that I am asked to shepherd. For some time, I have been sending my AD review comments to the WG mailing lists, rather than just to the authors and WG chairs, and it seems to work quite well. I also copy those comments into the tracker, so that folks who are interested in the status of the document can find them. Most of the time, my AD review comments don't spark any debate, but I think that doing this allows the WG to argue with me if they disagree with my comments. It also helps to improve visibility into how/why the document is being modified after the WG has declared it done. I think that this practice may also increase WG awareness of the fact that there is now an action item for their editor, and that public scrutiny may result in the editor turning the document around more quickly (I have no statistics to back this up, it is just an impression). I think that it would also be helpful to send IESG discusses and comments directly to the WGs (for all of the same reasons), and there are two ways that I think we could accomplish this: (1) When an AD has an open discuss that he or she does not clear during the telechat, he or she could send a copy of that discuss to the WG mailing list directly. This is quite direct, but might be a bit tricky in practice due to spam filters, etc. because the AD may not be a member of the mailing list in question. It is also more likely to suffer from human error or omission, because the tracker is set-up to show us the documents for which we are responsible AD, not those for which we currently hold discusses. - or - (2) After the document appears on a telechat, the responsible AD could send any remaining IESG discusses and comments to the WG mailing list (probably in a single message), cc:ing the ADs who entered those discusses or comments. I sometimes do this already, and it typically seems to work well. If folks think that it would be useful (for efficiency or visibility), I'd be happy to start doing it for every one of my documents that still has discusses open after the telechat. This approach would also resolve an outstanding issue with the PROTO process, by making it clear when it is time for the WG chairs to start working to resolve the discuss issues. This approach is somewhat less direct, but perhaps more practical than option (1). It may be subject to some human error, but the AD will see the document in an IESG Review stage each time he or she enters the tracker, so he or she will have an opportunity to notice his or her omission. - or - (3) We could modify the I-D Tracker so that it will send mail to the mailing list at one of two points: (a) whenever anyone enters a discuss position, or (b) whenever a discuss position remains after the documents has been on a telechat. This is both indirect and impersonal, but not subject to human error. Thoughts? Do other people think that it would help (efficiency or visibility) for all discusses to be sent to the WG mailing lists? Any thoughts on which of the three approaches above would work better? Margaret ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On 5/7/05, Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it. Dave, From my point of view, there are two assumptions that the IESG makes in this situation: 1) Since the responsible AD (or PROTO shepherd) is more familiar with the working group / document / other work / etc, they will be able to more effectively communicate the concerns. 2) The AD that registered the DISCUSS is always willing to actually have a discussion directly with the WG or authors if necessary. However, I think that the community tends to see instead: 1) The discussing AD is hiding behind a shield 2) The discussing AD isn't willing to communicate with the WG I've certainly seen responses to discusses that I've filed come back as Well, I don't think this is reasonable, but I've made this change to satisfy the IESG, even though I would have been willing to have the discussion and yield to the WG's/authors' opinion. I do think that #1 is solving a real problem - I'm pretty sure that WGs/authors would rather get one message summarizing all of the IESG's issues rather than 10 messages from different individuals that might have overlapping issues, etc. However, if it's perpetuating the myth that ADs aren't willing to talk to the WGs/authors, we need to do *something* about it. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hallam-Baker, Phillip) wrote on 28.04.05 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In every other forum I simply make up the SRV prefixes myself and stick them in the draft. The chance of accidental collision is insignificant. There are far more Windows applications than Internet communication protocols yet people seem to be able to cope with a 3 letter filetype extension astonishingly well. Bad example. Very bad example. The number of collisions with 3 letter filetypes is high enough that I'll call copes well flat out false. MfG Kai ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Thoughts? Do other people think that it would help (efficiency or visibility) for all discusses to be sent to the WG mailing lists? Any thoughts on which of the three approaches above would work better? Margaret OK, let me see if I understand the problem - - the ADs probably aren't members of every mailing list for a document that they may vote DISCUSS on, and - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow posting by non-members I really like the idea of working through DISCUSS comments on working group mailing lists. This method seems to place more responsibility on the community, which I also like. Do we need to figure out how an AD can participate in a discussion on a mailing list they aren't subscribed to, in order to make this work? Spencer p.s. I'm also wondering how many active WG mailing lists are hosted on ietf.org, versus living somewhere else in cyberspace - most of the WGs I participate in are hosted there, but YMMV... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Spencer - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow posting Spencer by non-members That's a violation of policy. Please see the IESG statement on spam policy; someone needs to be approving non-member postings for IETF working group lists. I think it is quite doable to work through discuss comments on the list. I don't completely agree that ADs should be sending the initial mail or that all discuss comments should make it to the mailing list, but I do agree with the general principle. Here are some things to consider: 1) It is probably desirable to aggregate comments together. It's probably desirable to include some general text letting a working group know what a discuss is and that they can push back, especially for first documents. Margaret's suggestion for mail to the wg copied to discussing ADs seems like a fine way to address this. 2) It is reasonable to let the shepherding AD and if desired the proto shepherd have a chance to respond to the discuss before the WG. This is not a requirement but I do think it will make things flow more efficiently. Certainly I'd say that not all discusses should make it to the WG list before the telechat. This is true especially when one of the shepherds plans to push back on the discuss. 3) IF the shepherding AD or proto shepherd cannot understand the discuss it is almost certainly worthwhile to get clarification before bringing it to the WG. 4) Many discusses are resolved with rfc-editor notes in a fairly efficient process. We should be careful of changing this; we don't want to slow down document approvals. It's probably desirable to let the WG know what if any changes are made in an rfc-editor note. It's probably reasonable for this to happen after document approval if the document gets approved fast enough; if a real problem develops in confirming WG consensus for such a change, we have a bit of time before the rfc editor publishes. We can revisit if the rfc editor starts getting fast enough that they publish within a week of IESG approval. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Sorry, I was imprecise. From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Spencer == Spencer Dawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Spencer - the mailing lists are often not set up to allow posting Spencer by non-members That's a violation of policy. Please see the IESG statement on spam policy; someone needs to be approving non-member postings for IETF working group lists. allow posting without manual intervention - the mailing lists I've administered for IETF had two settings, allow posting by non-members and hold postings by non-members for approval. What I was trying to say was, this is probably sufficient for first feedback, but probably not sufficient for actually discussing a DISCUSS comment. I've copied non-members asking for their feedback on technical questions a couple of times, and the discussion between people directly addressed and the rest of the mailing list gets badly of-of-sync very quickly, because directly addressed participants start responding to postings before they are approved, even with the most diligent mailing list admins. Have a great day, Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Jeffrey == Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeffrey On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference between the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the process. Jeffrey If I may read between the lines here, it sounds like Jeffrey you're suggesting some sort of reality-check process that Jeffrey is more lightweight than a full appeal. Informally, we Jeffrey have that -- if one AD is giving me a hard time for a Jeffrey dumb reason, I can ask another AD to try to talk some Jeffrey sense into them. But that only works if the participant Jeffrey has a good relationship with another AD, and while you Jeffrey hope that's true for WG chairs, that might not always be Jeffrey good enough. Such a procedure exists. Go to the tracker, select a document and click on the link that describes what the IESG votes mean (discuss vs yes vs no objection) Scroll down to the bottom of the page and find the alternate override procedure that the chair can use. It has never actually been used. We came very close once since I've been on the IESG. In retrospect, I think we would have been better off using the override procedure than spending an extra month dealing with the issue. In my opinion the document was improved by resolving the discuss but the improvement was not great and the frustration was. Of course the override wouldn't have actually gotten the document approved faster: another issue surfaced and took a long time to resolve. The new issue was something that even the sponsor felt was important to deal with. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Joe == Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joe Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference between the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the process. If I may read between the lines here, it sounds like you're suggesting some sort of reality-check process that is more lightweight than a full appeal. Informally, we have that -- if one AD is giving me a hard time for a dumb reason, I can ask another AD to try to talk some sense into them. But that only works if the participant has a good relationship with another AD, and while you hope that's true for WG chairs, that might not always be good enough. Joe Yup - it relies too much on goodwill and who-knows-whom, Joe which is unfair to those who are trying to get things through Joe for the first time. Joe, fundamentally human interaction depends on good will. Things are always easier the first time. Depending on how they go then it may or may not be easier the next time. The only other option is to make things uniformly bad all the time. Assuming that there is good will and working with people can go a long way. If you have a problem ask if you can talk about it; if email is not working try the phone or instant messaging. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their Dave concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification The proto team has already decided on a conflicting approach: the proto shepherd is ultimately responsible for collecting discuss comments and forwarding them to the right list. I think there are some good reasons for this decision. I believe the proto team has already solicited public comment and received a fair bit. It is my opinion at least that the community supports their approach. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Sam, Dave 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their Dave concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification The proto team has already decided on a conflicting approach: the proto shepherd is ultimately responsible for collecting discuss comments and forwarding them to the right list. Here I was, thinking that proto was simply moving some administrative details down to the working group, rather than creating an enforced, protective barrier between an individual with veto authority and the recipients of that veto. Sidebar Yes, I know the term veto is inflammatory. What folks on the IESG need to understand is just how inflammatory the problem is, to lowly IETF participants, when it occurs. It has been an occasional problem since the beginning of the IETF and it occurs often enough to indicate a structural problem. It boils down to an inappropriate use of authority, no matter what its intention might be. From a practical standpoint, the issue with this problem is the excercise of an absolute authority; that authority is, in the purest sense, a veto. And we need to be careful about claiming that there is a way to override the veto, given that it has not been used; hence there is not existence proof for its being a meaningful way to reverse a veto.) /Sidebar In fact that is all they are doing. We have been doing a version of this pretty much forever. Indeed, proto really IS merely moving that task from the cognizant AD to the wg chair (or whoever.) So it is not conflicting with the change being discussed here, except to the extent that it continues an established model and we are talking here about changing that model. This model does not work for any interesting case, making the shepherd responsible for mediating an interaction that is nearly always complex and often vague. It is exactly the sort of interaction you do NOT want to have somebody in the middle of. You want the principals to interact directly. I think there are some good reasons for this decision. I believe the proto team has already solicited public comment and received a fair bit. It is my opinion at least that the community supports their approach. This, of course, is the problem with having such fundamental changes marginalized into a working group that competes with all others for participation. In this case, I've no doubt there is support for moving an existing practise off of an AD and down to the wg. That does not have anything to do with whether there is support for *retaining* this model, rather than require more direct communication. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Dave == Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dave Sam, 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of Dave their concern to the mailing list targeted to that Dave specification The proto team has already decided on a conflicting approach: the proto shepherd is ultimately responsible for collecting discuss comments and forwarding them to the right list. Dave Here I was, thinking that proto was simply moving some Dave administrative details down to the working group, rather Dave than creating an enforced, protective barrier between an Dave individual with veto authority and the recipients of that Dave veto. No, that's not what I said. I said that the proto shepherd is responsible for sending the comment to the appropriate place. If the add holding the discuss wants to send it to the mailing listthat's fine. If the working group wants to send mail to the AD that's fine too. One of the reasons you might want to do things this way is that you might have a bunch of related discusses that you want to send to the mailing list all at once. I can think of other reasons the proto team might not want to require the AD holding the discuss send the message to the WG. I don't really care that much. My goal in writing to you was to let you know that your proposal disagreed with something and to suggest who you might want to talk to in order to resolve that disagreement. I'm not on the proto team; this particular issue is not something I care that much about either way. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
No, that's not what I said. I said that the proto shepherd is responsible for sending the comment to the appropriate place. As I said, that's been standard practise forever. It's been done by the cognizant AD and proto is proposing it be done by someone else, but the task is not changed. If the add holding the discuss wants to send it to the mailing listthat's fine. If the working group wants to send mail to the AD that's fine too. More than one of us has tried to describe the nature of the problem and its solution yet we seem not to be heard. Let me try the simplest summary possible: If someone has the authority to block the long-term work of a group of IETF participants, they have an *obligation* to take their concerns directly to those participants and engage in a direct process to resolve it. Authority always comes with responsibility. In this case it should simply be that the authority to block a group has a responsibility to interact with that group. Directly. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Sam Hartman wrote: Joe == Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joe Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference between the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the process. If I may read between the lines here, it sounds like you're suggesting some sort of reality-check process that is more lightweight than a full appeal. Informally, we have that -- if one AD is giving me a hard time for a dumb reason, I can ask another AD to try to talk some sense into them. But that only works if the participant has a good relationship with another AD, and while you hope that's true for WG chairs, that might not always be good enough. Joe Yup - it relies too much on goodwill and who-knows-whom, Joe which is unfair to those who are trying to get things through Joe for the first time. Joe, fundamentally human interaction depends on good will. Things are always easier the first time. Depending on how they go then it may or may not be easier the next time. The only other option is to make things uniformly bad all the time. Procedures are there for when good will isn't enough. I agree they shouldn't be the first course of action, but they are the backup plan. And even people experiencing the system for the first time need a backup. Assuming that there is good will and working with people can go a long way. If you have a problem ask if you can talk about it; if email is not working try the phone or instant messaging. And when that fails - that's what the rest of what we're talking about is focused on, IMO. Joe signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Jefsey, On 19:22 05/05/2005, Joe Touch said: The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically astute people and egocentric fools. Ditto for the ADs themselves. Has this a real importance? The control is by IETF as a whole, _if_ rough consensus is the rule. What is expected from ADs is to make sure that what is proposed meets a rough consensus. This could possibly include commenting their concerns before the Last Call if they feel it necessary. This may include their advise. They should however _never_ consider anything else than consensus. If they have other concerns they should join the WG. That is *not* how things are done today. As I mentioned before rough consensus goes only up to a certain point, but after that point the IETF operates solely by a decree from the IESG. Yakov. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Steve - Final decision is made as it is today; proposed change is timing and context for review... - Ralph On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 16:28 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ralph Droms writes : So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random participants, WG members, doc editors and ADs together when the spec is reviewed - and ensure that all comments are published in the same forum and given appropriate weight based on technical merit, as supported by explanatory text when the comments are published. Then what? How are the comments resolved? Who makes the final decision about whether or not a document has met certain standards? --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Technically-astute non-ADs (was: Re: text suggested by ADs)
John - editing to get directly to your questions: On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 18:45 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: (1) What would it take to convince you that putting in a term or two as AD --not a life sentence, but a term or two-- was an obligation you, as long-term participants and contributors, owed the community? I do see a term or two as AD as an obligation - that I haven't chosen to fulfill. I have seriously considered allowing the nomcom to add my name to the list of candidates for AD a couple of times (and may have left may name on the list once, but I can't recall with certainty), but have always decided against it in the end. I have the delusion that I would be able to make a positive contribution. However, from what I've been able to learn about the commitment to the job, I have not been willing to make the professional and personal tradeoffs (even sacrifices) required to fulfill the responsibilities. And, I already seem to have a life sentence as chair of the dhc WG... (2) How, if at all, would the AD job have to change in order to make volunteering on that basis plausible for you? Please don't just answer lower workload: if that is all or part of the answer, what would you get rid of and what would you do with it? I don't know of specific ways to change the job enough to make it plausible. More important would be to find myself in a professional and personal situation where I, my family and my employer would be willing to commit the necessary time (15-25 hrs/wk? and IETF weeks) and travel to fulfill the commitments. - Ralph ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Technically-astute non-ADs (was: Re: text suggested by ADs)
Ralph, An interesting, obviously reasonable, and not-unexpected perspective. But the question wasn't addressed just to you -- I think it would be useful to hear from others, especially those who have put in a few terms as WG chairs or doc editors, on this. What I've heard, very indirectly, from some nomcoms is that they sometimes return incumbents, in spite of seeing a need for turnover, because they have had no plausible alternatives. To the extent to which that is a real issue, I think it means two things to the community: (i) We need to understand the issue and, as appropriate, change things around until there are alternatives. That might involve workload/ work description changes, training alternatives and more leadership development, or other factors, but it seems to me that the question is becoming critical-path. (ii) We need to ask ourselves, carefully and sincerely, somne questions about areas and IETF capabilities. In particular, suppose we have an area that has so little leadership depth that the nomcom does not have reasonable choices of AD candidates. Is it time to declare that the IETF lacks the resources to pursue the work of that area in an effective way and then shut it down? That is not a propoosal, just a question that, I believe, deserves serious thought. john --On Thursday, May 05, 2005 08:48 -0400 Ralph Droms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John - editing to get directly to your questions: On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 18:45 -0400, John C Klensin wrote: (1) What would it take to convince you that putting in a term or two as AD --not a life sentence, but a term or two-- was an obligation you, as long-term participants and contributors, owed the community? I do see a term or two as AD as an obligation - that I haven't chosen to fulfill. I have seriously considered allowing the nomcom to add my name to the list of candidates for AD a couple of times (and may have left may name on the list once, but I can't recall with certainty), but have always decided against it in the end. I have the delusion that I would be able to make a positive contribution. However, from what I've been able to learn about the commitment to the job, I have not been willing to make the professional and personal tradeoffs (even sacrifices) required to fulfill the responsibilities. And, I already seem to have a life sentence as chair of the dhc WG... (2) How, if at all, would the AD job have to change in order to make volunteering on that basis plausible for you? Please don't just answer lower workload: if that is all or part of the answer, what would you get rid of and what would you do with it? I don't know of specific ways to change the job enough to make it plausible. More important would be to find myself in a professional and personal situation where I, my family and my employer would be willing to commit the necessary time (15-25 hrs/wk? and IETF weeks) and travel to fulfill the commitments. - Ralph ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Technically-astute non-ADs (was: Re: text suggested by ADs)
Folks, To the extent to which that is a real issue, ... (i) We need to understand the issue and, as appropriate, change things around until there are alternatives... (ii) We need to ask ourselves, carefully and sincerely, somne questions about areas and IETF capabilities... In spite of my already posting to the list too often, I think it worth posting on this John's note to suggest, strongly, that folks consider hos comments by very carefully. They really do go to the core. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Keith Moore wrote: At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the IETF who is more technically astute than that AD. perhaps. however, it's hard to identify those people, They're the ones disagreeing with the ADs in some cases ;-) and they may not have either the time/energy or neutrality that are required to do final review. Neutrality is a two-way street; it is required for ADs too, and they, just like individuals, have had (and continue to have) their pet perspectives. if they do, they're free to put their names in the hat for the next NOMCOM. So the message is get your employer to ante 80% of your time to the IETF, or keep your expertise to yourself? NOMCOM descisions are not a lottery where you win the right to have your input count more. Joe signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ralph Droms writes : So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random participants, WG members, doc editors and ADs together when the spec is reviewed - and ensure that all comments are published in the same forum and given appropriate weight based on technical merit, as supported by explanatory text when the comments are published. Then what? How are the comments resolved? Who makes the final decision about whether or not a document has met certain standards? Rough consensus and running code Even at this level. Joe signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the IETF who is more technically astute than that AD. perhaps. however, it's hard to identify those people, They're the ones disagreeing with the ADs in some cases ;-) The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically astute people and egocentric fools. Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing opinions as who which people are in which category. and they may not have either the time/energy or neutrality that are required to do final review. Neutrality is a two-way street; it is required for ADs too, and they, just like individuals, have had (and continue to have) their pet perspectives. There's more than one kind of neutrality. The kind of neutrality I was talking about was one that would not inherently favor one vendor's approach over another, or would not favor one of multiple equally-valid approaches over another. However, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with an AD having a technical opinion that one approach is more valid than another. That's their job. if they do, they're free to put their names in the hat for the next NOMCOM. So the message is get your employer to ante 80% of your time to the IETF, or keep your expertise to yourself? Nope. The message is that if you are technically astute and have enough time to review lots of documents from different areas, you will probably end up on IESG. OTOH, if you don't have enough time to review large numbers of documents from different areas, you aren't likely to have a sufficently broad perspective to warrant allowing you to override the opinions of those who do. Of course you can still contribute your expertise in numerous ways - by participating in WG discussions, sending comments to WGs you don't participate regularly in, sending Last Call comments, sending comments to IESG well in advance of Last Call, submitting your own drafts, etc. All of these are highly appreciated, and some of them - particularly Last Call comments - carry considerable weight. But just because you are enamored with (your opinion of) your expertise doesn't mean that you get to have your work endorsed by the entire organization without having it reviewed by people who attempt to make sure that it makes sense from a broad perspective. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Keith Moore wrote: At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the IETF who is more technically astute than that AD. perhaps. however, it's hard to identify those people, They're the ones disagreeing with the ADs in some cases ;-) The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically astute people and egocentric fools. Ditto for the ADs themselves. Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing opinions as who which people are in which category. On both counts. and they may not have either the time/energy or neutrality that are required to do final review. Neutrality is a two-way street; it is required for ADs too, and they, just like individuals, have had (and continue to have) their pet perspectives. There's more than one kind of neutrality. The kind of neutrality I was talking about was one that would not inherently favor one vendor's approach over another, or would not favor one of multiple equally-valid approaches over another. However, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with an AD having a technical opinion that one approach is more valid than another. That's their job. Ditto for individuals. ADs don't have a lock on tech bias and vendor neutrality, nor are they immune from favoring one of a number of equally valid approaches, esp. when disagreeing about architectural futures (e.g., NATs vs. non-NATs). if they do, they're free to put their names in the hat for the next NOMCOM. So the message is get your employer to ante 80% of your time to the IETF, or keep your expertise to yourself? Nope. The message is that if you are technically astute and have enough time to review lots of documents from different areas, you will probably end up on IESG. OTOH, if you don't have enough time to review large numbers of documents from different areas, you aren't likely to have a sufficently broad perspective to warrant allowing you to override the opinions of those who do. Consider the case where you're PAID to participate in a number of WGs (as I am, for example), either by your employer or a project sponsor. In those cases, you're unlikely to get a green-light to do 80% IESG, even if that's how much time you spend on IETF-related stuff anyway. The letter of support is the issue. It's naiive to assume that ADs are self-selecting for anything except the set of rules that have been setup as prerequisite. It's certainly not self-selecting just on broad expertise, lack of vendor bias, etc. - although the NOMCOM tries to do a good job, they often don't have an alternative (as has already been noted) because many good people have the qualifications but aren't allowed to apply. Of course you can still contribute your expertise in numerous ways - by participating in WG discussions, sending comments to WGs you don't participate regularly in, sending Last Call comments, sending comments to IESG well in advance of Last Call, submitting your own drafts, etc. All of these are highly appreciated, and some of them - particularly Last Call comments - carry considerable weight. But just because you are enamored with (your opinion of) your expertise doesn't mean that you get to have your work endorsed by the entire organization without having it reviewed by people who attempt to make sure that it makes sense from a broad perspective. Keith And the ADs, just because they are enamored of sitting at the dias at meetings, don't have a lock on broad perspective. If they want THEIR positions endorsed by the ENTIRE organization they can make their case to the ENTIRE organization before Last Call. If they're right, rough consensus will work. If not, then they shouldn't have a unique right to overrides. Joe signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically astute people and egocentric fools. Ditto for the ADs themselves. Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing opinions as who which people are in which category. On both counts. yes, and yes. But there are far fewer egocentric fools in IESG than among those disagreeing with IESG. The real trick for IESG is to pay due attention to valid comments without getting bogged down in discussion with egocentric but otherwise intelligent fools. nor are [ADs] immune from favoring one of a number of equally valid approaches, esp. when disagreeing about architectural futures (e.g., NATs vs. non-NATs). NAT vs. non-NAT are not equally valid, by any stretch of the imagination.A network with large numbers of NATs is inherently less reliable, more complex, less capable of supporting applications, more difficult to manage, more failure-prone, and generally more costly than a similar-sized network without NATs - even if those NATs support mechanisms for allowing apps to circumvent some of their limitations. The ability to understand the consequences of technical choices - like the choice of whether to endorse or discourage NAT - is essential for doing good engineering, and for reviewing others' engineering work. It's naiive to assume that ADs are self-selecting for anything except the set of rules that have been setup as prerequisite. It's certainly not self-selecting just on broad expertise, lack of vendor bias, etc. - although the NOMCOM tries to do a good job, they often don't have an alternative (as has already been noted) because many good people have the qualifications but aren't allowed to apply. ADs aren't self-selecting, they're selected by NOMCOM. And it's been my understanding that NOMCOM generally does have alternatives, though perhaps not many _good_ alternatives. If you want to claim that the workload of being on IESG is so high that we can't recruit enough good candidates, you'll get no argument from me about that. That's why I look for ways to lessen IESG's workload while still maintaining document quality. And the ADs, just because they are enamored of sitting at the dias at meetings, don't have a lock on broad perspective. If they want THEIR positions endorsed by the ENTIRE organization they can make their case to the ENTIRE organization before Last Call. If they're right, rough consensus will work. If not, then they shouldn't have a unique right to overrides. ADs don't have a right to override anything. They are, however, entrusted with the power to review documents on behalf of the organization. We extend this trust to a few carefully-screened people to avoid the situation where a much larger number of self- selecting people have the ability to make arbitrary, contradicting, and sometimes incompetent statements on behalf of the organization. The latter kind of organization would be useless, and its imprimatur would carry negative weight, because only the incompetent would work there. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Keith Moore wrote: The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically astute people and egocentric fools. Ditto for the ADs themselves. Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing opinions as who which people are in which category. On both counts. yes, and yes. But there are far fewer egocentric fools in IESG than among those disagreeing with IESG. Only because the IESG is a smaller set, IMO. The real trick for IESG is to pay due attention to valid comments without getting bogged down in discussion with egocentric but otherwise intelligent fools. Ditto for the IETF paying attention to ADs, IMO. nor are [ADs] immune from favoring one of a number of equally valid approaches, esp. when disagreeing about architectural futures (e.g., NATs vs. non-NATs). NAT vs. non-NAT are not equally valid, by any stretch of the imagination. While I agree, that hasn't been the position of the ADs, or the IETF as a whole over time. ... The ability to understand the consequences of technical choices - like the choice of whether to endorse or discourage NAT - is essential for doing good engineering, and for reviewing others' engineering work. Which is why I am suspicious of how the ADs endorsed NATs for political (IMO) reasons when they first came out, and how we were encouraged to support them where possible, even when they violated the basic tenets of the Internet architecture expressed by existing Internet Standard docs. The point here isn't NATs; it's that whether something is an architectural, correctness, corporate, or personal rant is a matter of perspective in many cases. It's naiive to assume that ADs are self-selecting for anything except the set of rules that have been setup as prerequisite. It's certainly not self-selecting just on broad expertise, lack of vendor bias, etc. - although the NOMCOM tries to do a good job, they often don't have an alternative (as has already been noted) because many good people have the qualifications but aren't allowed to apply. ADs aren't self-selecting, they're selected by NOMCOM. - From a self-selected set of those who filled out applications - based on a filter of hurdles. ... And the ADs, just because they are enamored of sitting at the dias at meetings, don't have a lock on broad perspective. If they want THEIR positions endorsed by the ENTIRE organization they can make their case to the ENTIRE organization before Last Call. If they're right, rough consensus will work. If not, then they shouldn't have a unique right to overrides. ADs don't have a right to override anything. They are, however, entrusted with the power to review documents on behalf of the organization. We extend this trust to a few carefully-screened people to avoid the situation where a much larger number of self- selecting people have the ability to make arbitrary, contradicting, and sometimes incompetent statements on behalf of the organization. So we have a smaller set entrusted to do the same? The setsize isn't the issue; it's the imbalance of control. The latter kind of organization would be useless, and its imprimatur would carry negative weight, because only the incompetent would work there. Keith -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCemHdE5f5cImnZrsRAinpAJ9N+mNBywIZQUOIxSezTB3QecbyvQCdHXnQ zH20m28ff0wJjUHRas+p7WY= =SKuy -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
last post on Re: text suggested by ADs
ADs don't have a right to override anything. They are, however, entrusted with the power to review documents on behalf of the organization. We extend this trust to a few carefully-screened people to avoid the situation where a much larger number of self- selecting people have the ability to make arbitrary, contradicting, and sometimes incompetent statements on behalf of the organization. So we have a smaller set entrusted to do the same? The setsize isn't the issue; it's the imbalance of control. The setsize and imbalance of control are not issues, they are features. You can't get reasonable consistency or quality any other way. Again, you seem to be ignoring the numerous remedies to abuse or poor decision-making that exist (some formal, others informal). This discussion has long since become circular, we're not converging, and I'd rather be doing useful technical work. So this will be my last post on this thread. You may now have the last word. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
At 18:11 05/05/2005, Joe Touch wrote: Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ralph Droms writes So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random participants, WG members, doc editors and ADs together when the spec is reviewed - and ensure that all comments are published in the same forum and given appropriate weight based on technical merit, as supported by explanatory text when the comments are published. Then what? How are the comments resolved? Who makes the final decision about whether or not a document has met certain standards? Rough consensus and running code Even at this level. Unfortunately this is not always true. When a best common practice is imagined or a IANA registry created. They can have impact beyond repairs. This is why I underline how Ted Hardie's question and the answers to it are important. Everyone can forgive and forget an RFC. No one can do that with a IANA registry or with the momentum induced in telling people the world uses to do something it does not. Once a registry has been created or a non existing practice endorsed on matter A, on wrong premises or not, if the matter A does exist, we will have to live with it for ever. The only possible correction would be to create a competing correct A registry or to turn to another world (this is propobly the main reason of the interest in ITU) and then to start an alt-root war, with most of the users using the wrong solution, due to the IANA prestige; and turning down the whole IANA if the recognise the problem. If the matter is important, and if it concerns governments (the Internet RD funders) the implications for the Internet stability and future can be totaly out of proportion with the A matter. This is why I would propose that new IANA registries are accepted ad experimenda (for test) until confirmed by a standard: during that period a registry could have several versions (even opposing). And that best common practices document (except for the Internet standard process) give criteria to verify (when) they reached the common level. The formula could be roug consensus, running code, proven practice and used registry. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On 19:22 05/05/2005, Joe Touch said: The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically astute people and egocentric fools. Ditto for the ADs themselves. Has this a real importance? The control is by IETF as a whole, _if_ rough consensus is the rule. What is expected from ADs is to make sure that what is proposed meets a rough consensus. This could possibly include commenting their concerns before the Last Call if they feel it necessary. This may include their advise. They should however _never_ consider anything else than consensus. If they have other concerns they should join the WG. Technically astute people and egocentric fools are usually both out of consensus. The only thing expected from IETF as a whole is a permanent consensus never to prevent technically astute fools' solutions from developing outside of the IETF until they may be understood and possibly accepted by its members as part of their consensus. This is why, the IANA registry and Best New Practice question is so important. May be a solution would be to consider an Internet Innovation Task Force to serve as an astute fool's test bed. The rule there would not be consensus but the most astute solution, by participant votes. If you consider Source Forge, it works de facto in this way. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or control (veto power). There's no way to avoid that happening and still have quality control. Why is that? If an AD has a compelling reason that a specification needs work, the AD should be able to make a convincing argument to the IETF as a whole. Not necessarily, because many compelling reasons will not be understood by the IETF as a whole. Look how long it took for the community to start understanding the problems associated with scoped addressing. Best way to do that is in an open conversation during the IETF last call. The best time to give a working group feedback is as early as possible, and long before the IETF last call. Providing an extra stage of review during Last Call would provide marginal, perhaps even negative, return for the additional effort invested. If we're going to invest effort in extra stages of review, we'd get more benefit by doing that review much earlier in a document's life cycle. Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open mailing lists during last calls, to make sure their technical input is on the same footing as everyone else's technical input. I agree that the IESG's job is to ensure correctness, completeness, etc. That feedback should be provided earlier, in an open forum. I agree that input should be provided as early as possible. But some kinds of feedback inherently follow Last Call, Such as? Somebody has to evaluate Last Call comments, and make a determination as to whether the Last Call comment is correct, or the WG text is correct, or (as is often the case) whether there is some merit in the Last Call comment but it is overreaching in some way. It's also possible for multiple Last Call comments to conflict, or for a Last Call comment to reveal new issues about a document that weren't the subject of the Last Call comment. What you seem to be asking for is for the final review to be done twice - one in which the IESG reviews a document during Last Call, and another in which the IESG reviews a document after Last Call comments have been received. This would substantially increase IESG's workload. Something that needs to be understood is that most people who read as many documents as the IESG does will not retain many details of those documents in memory. So they'll need to reread the documents (or at least the relevant portions) to evaluate Last Call comments. And yet when rereading the document the text will look familiar and it's even harder to notice details. For this reason a thorough rereading of a document can be even more tedious than reading it the first time. and limiting IESG input to before Last Call would just serve to make the process even slower than it already is (by requiring multiple IESG reviews rather than just one), I disagree - suppose the gating function comes *before* the IETF last call: before a draft goes to IETF last call, the ADs all agree that they are prepared (have cycles, aren't travelling, etc.) to review and comment on the draft. My experience has been that the there can be an unbounded delay between the IETF last call and the IESG review. Your proposal would move the unbounded delay to _before_ IETF Last Call. As it is now, if a WG gets feedback during Last Call that there's something wrong with its work, it can suggest fixes for the problems (or otherwise respond to the comments) before IESG reviews the document, thus increasing the potential for the document to be approved (pending changes) by IESG on the first review. The other problem with the proposal - the other reason it would increase IESG workload for marginal benefit - has to do with the changes that it would imply for the way IESG operates. At least when I was on IESG, the IESG as a whole would not evaluate a document until the responsible AD had reviewed it and was willing to vote Yes on the document. This saved the IESG the effort of having to review documents that were clearly not ready. Your proposal would take away this optimization. (OTOH, that procedure had its own problems - in particular it put the responsible AD in a bind if he or she found problems with a document. Pushing the document back to the WG required an extra revision/review cycle and delayed progress of the document for several weeks. At the same time, since this pushback came from a single AD, the WG could accuse the AD of capriciousness. So responsible ADs would either be tempted to solve the problems themselves by suggesting changes in text to the WG (to which their response might be to balk), or to state a Yes position on the document but somehow get another AD to state a Discuss position in order to get the responsible AD's
Re: text suggested by ADs
I see that many points made _may_ lead to personal controversy (not the target). I hate rigidity and procedures but I love method. We may like it or not, but IETF is only subject to good practices as a guidance to imperfect members trying their best. Rules will not change that. But we might accept some IETFiquette permitting to achieve more. I have always been impressed by RFC 1958 which actually defines the architecture of the Internet without any rule. I think it misses a model, the same as I think sometimes IETF misses method; but it seems to work. I would suggest that instead of commenting at length on each others comments, those who have a suggestion makes it a short sentence and we make a list of it. Not as a rule, but as guidance. After a while, the ones which work would de facto become part of the Thao of the IETF. I would suggest one: When a Charter is assigned or updated, the WG should review it until the AD are satisfied it has been understood, and the WG is satisfied the AD and the IESG have understood the enhancements proposed by the WG from its own members experience. As discussed here AD and IESG may know better than the WG in some cases, or less in other cases. It is important that in both cases they first understand each other over the expected deliverables, rather than dispute at the end. IETFiquette should prevent any WG work before there is a consensus that such a common understanding has been reached. A Charter should not be not up for debate until the Chair and a part of the WH has complete their work on a predetermined proposition. jfc At 02:22 04/05/2005, Ralph Droms wrote: On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 12:19 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: Let me also restate for clarity: Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or control (veto power). There's no way to avoid that happening and still have quality control. Why is that? If an AD has a compelling reason that a specification needs work, the AD should be able to make a convincing argument to the IETF as a whole. Best way to do that is in an open conversation during the IETF last call. Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open mailing lists during last calls, to make sure their technical input is on the same footing as everyone else's technical input. I agree that the IESG's job is to ensure correctness, completeness, etc. That feedback should be provided earlier, in an open forum. I agree that input should be provided as early as possible. But some kinds of feedback inherently follow Last Call, Such as? and limiting IESG input to before Last Call would just serve to make the process even slower than it already is (by requiring multiple IESG reviews rather than just one), I disagree - suppose the gating function comes *before* the IETF last call: before a draft goes to IETF last call, the ADs all agree that they are prepared (have cycles, aren't travelling, etc.) to review and comment on the draft. My experience has been that the there can be an unbounded delay between the IETF last call and the IESG review. while lowering publication quality (by preventing IESG from objecting to valid technical issues noticed after Last Call, and perhaps discovered while considering Last Call input, but not directly related to issues raised in Last Call). Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
I hate rigidity and procedures but I love method. That's a very useful distinction. There are lots of practices which we would do well to recommend, but which we should not require. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random participants, WG members, doc editors and ADs together when the spec is reviewed - and ensure that all comments are published in the same forum and given appropriate weight based on technical merit, as supported by explanatory text when the comments are published. Ralph, This isn't likely to succeed. It is too straightforward, reasonable and fair. and with my sarcasm mode turned off: This sounds like an excellent suggestion. It is straightforward, reasonable and fair. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ralph Droms writes : So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random participants, WG members, doc editors and ADs together when the spec is reviewed - and ensure that all comments are published in the same forum and given appropriate weight based on technical merit, as supported by explanatory text when the comments are published. Then what? How are the comments resolved? Who makes the final decision about whether or not a document has met certain standards? --Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 11:12 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: 1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative concern that involves the viability of the specification. As a practical matter, the line between normative and informative is likely grey enough to make this suggestion unworkable... interesting point. first question, then, is why has the ietf been finding it important to make the distinction between the two? I can't speak for the IETF as a whole; for the most part, classification as normative/informative is pretty obvious. But, if a reviewer feels strongly that something in a spec needs to be fixed, seems likely that the reviewer will classify the issue as normative. second question is how do we distinguish between Discuss items that really do pertain to it won't work and it's unacceptably deficient concerns, versus an AD's personal preferences and whims? I suggest we depend on the IETF as a whole ... by publishing and discussing the Discuss comments on a widely read mailing list. 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification and must provide clear direction as to how to cure the problem. Failing the ability to provide the detail about how to fix the specification, the AD must engage in a dialogue that has the goal of specifying that detail. I agree with the first clause; the concern must be explained and motivated in detail. The WG - not the AD or the doc authors in isolation - should develop the solution. This raises two issues. One is that the focus of the suggestion is making sure that an AD who asserts a late-stage veto is meaningfully obligated to work constructively to remove it. Agreed and such obligation (which is the usual case now) would be a good thing. The other is that working groups rarely develop solutions. Participants or small sub-groups develop solutions; working groups review and approve. Good point. When a random participant raises a concern during specification development, the working group can readily acknowledge the issue and add it to the workload, or it can fail to gain traction. In the former case, the working group takes responsibility for finding the solution. In the latter, the issue is, effectively, turned back to the person with the concern. It is up to them to find some way to get the working group to embrace the concern; the usual way to do this is to propose a solution, so that the working group has a more solid sense of the topic. Now we move to a late-stage AD veto. The working group has put years of effort in and lots of review. Here comes an AD -- typically one who has not been involved until this point -- blocking progress by stating some concern. If the concern is obviously valid to everyone, then there is no issue. Everyone goes wow, we sure are glad you caught that, and goes off to fix it. The problem is when the AD's concern is not obviously valid, or at least not obviously valid as a valid reason for blocking progress. Today, there is almost no cost to the AD in these situations and, therefore, no pressure on them to be reasonable and constructive to resolve it. So, without meaning any offense to the ADs, I suggest we lump random participants, WG members, doc editors and ADs together when the spec is reviewed - and ensure that all comments are published in the same forum and given appropriate weight based on technical merit, as supported by explanatory text when the comments are published. - Ralph We need to change limits and incentives, to fix this. In order to deal with the issue of a pocket veto, whereby the AD is intractable but maintains the veto, there needs to be a mechanism to force review of the Discuss, either to assert that, indeed, it involves a valid showstopper (failure) of the specification or that it can be ignored. such a mechanism already exists. If you are referring to a classic Appeal, then that is too heavyweight and onerous. The cost to the participant, of making an appeal, is significant. If you are referring to something else, what is is and where is it documented? d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 12:19 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: Let me also restate for clarity: Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or control (veto power). There's no way to avoid that happening and still have quality control. Why is that? If an AD has a compelling reason that a specification needs work, the AD should be able to make a convincing argument to the IETF as a whole. Best way to do that is in an open conversation during the IETF last call. Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open mailing lists during last calls, to make sure their technical input is on the same footing as everyone else's technical input. I agree that the IESG's job is to ensure correctness, completeness, etc. That feedback should be provided earlier, in an open forum. I agree that input should be provided as early as possible. But some kinds of feedback inherently follow Last Call, Such as? and limiting IESG input to before Last Call would just serve to make the process even slower than it already is (by requiring multiple IESG reviews rather than just one), I disagree - suppose the gating function comes *before* the IETF last call: before a draft goes to IETF last call, the ADs all agree that they are prepared (have cycles, aren't travelling, etc.) to review and comment on the draft. My experience has been that the there can be an unbounded delay between the IETF last call and the IESG review. while lowering publication quality (by preventing IESG from objecting to valid technical issues noticed after Last Call, and perhaps discovered while considering Last Call input, but not directly related to issues raised in Last Call). Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
At 23:47 30/04/2005, Fred Baker wrote: On #2, when an AD posts a DISCUSS, s/he is now required to post a comment to the id tracker. I don't think you want the AD to have to write it twice. Coming back to a comment that was made earlier (and has been made on [EMAIL PROTECTED], which IMHO is a better place to have this part of the discussion) what you want is an automated note sent to the WG mailing list (or in the case of an individual submission, to the authors) indicating that the draft's tracker entry has been updated and giving a URL to go read it. As a general rule and to make everyone aware of the id tracker, I would suggest it to be netiquette to refer to Drafts though their ULD there - as for any other quoted document. It would simplify the life of everyone, make people more aware of the IESG work and probably increase global efficiency? jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Keith, The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well. [...] And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. I think the ADs should continue to be able to raise such issues, but I also think it might be helpful to have better way of resolving such disputes than either let the AD win or let's sit on this until the IESG holds its nose and passes it. Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to what can you add/change to appease the other AD rather than what is sensible to add. It's as likely to boil down to how do we get this WG to realize that there really is a serious technical problem with what they've created? How about requiring to produce working code (and perhaps operational experience) ? Yakov. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
It's as likely to boil down to how do we get this WG to realize that there really is a serious technical problem with what they've created? How about requiring to produce working code (and perhaps operational experience) ? working code is valuable in some cases - especially where it appears that the protocol is not easily implemented. but working code won't provide an indication of how well the protocol works in large deployments in the wild. for that, analysis and/or modeling are the best tools we have. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Keith, It's as likely to boil down to how do we get this WG to realize that there really is a serious technical problem with what they've created? How about requiring to produce working code (and perhaps operational experience) ? working code is valuable in some cases - especially where it appears that the protocol is not easily implemented. but working code won't provide an indication of how well the protocol works in large deployments in the wild. for that, analysis and/or modeling are the best tools we have. How many of such analysis and/or modeling has been produced by the IESG ? Yakov. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
working code is valuable in some cases - especially where it appears that the protocol is not easily implemented. but working code won't provide an indication of how well the protocol works in large deployments in the wild. for that, analysis and/or modeling are the best tools we have. How many of such analysis and/or modeling has been produced by the IESG ? I don't know, and neither do you. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Keith, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. I disagree that the ADs are necessarily that much more technically astute than the rest of us. 1. ADs usually _are_ more technically astute than the average IETF participant (perhaps not you, but the average participant), because ADs are selected for their expertise while IETF participants are self-selecting. (Maybe some are selected by their employers, but I don't think it's generally the practice of most employers to send their best technical people to standards committees. My impression is that many employers - not all by any means - would rather send people who are expendable, and/or who will represent the company's official position rather than their own best judgment.) At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the IETF who is more technically astute than that AD. So, why should the IETF decision process favor opinion of such AD more than the opinion of these other individual who are more astute that the AD ? 2. ADs also tend to have a broader perspective than the average IETF participant, because ADs are exposed to everything that IETF does while most participants' activity is confined to a narrow topic area. That's not to say that a broad perspective is inherently less valuable than a narrow perspective - they're both valuable, but for different reasons. Suffice to say that ADs do *not* have the monopoly on the broader perspective. Yakov. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the IETF who is more technically astute than that AD. perhaps. however, it's hard to identify those people, and they may not have either the time/energy or neutrality that are required to do final review. if they do, they're free to put their names in the hat for the next NOMCOM. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 09:35, Ralph Droms wrote: Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or control (veto power). Indeed. There will be very technically astute people involved in the IETF who don't want to serve as AD for any number of reasons (have other life-consuming things to do; don't want to deal with the politics, etc.). And I haven't seen sufficient attention paid in this thread to the difference between breadth vs. depth in both knowledge and skill. I would expect that the folks writing the specs would have the most depth with respect to their particular technology while AD's and other generalist reviewers would likely have more breadth and better insight about the interaction between that technology and the rest of the universe. - Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Technically-astute non-ADs (was: Re: text suggested by ADs)
--On Monday, 02 May, 2005 18:26 -0400 Bill Sommerfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 09:35, Ralph Droms wrote: Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or control (veto power). Indeed. There will be very technically astute people involved in the IETF who don't want to serve as AD for any number of reasons (have other life-consuming things to do; don't want to deal with the politics, etc.). And some of us who periodically delude ourselves that we are technically astute in at least a few areas have put in our time as ADs and feel as if we have paid our dues and it is someone else's turn. I certainly fall into that category. I can't speak for Keith, Dave Crocker, and other former ADs who have spoken up in this discussion, but I suspect... So I want to pose a different, but related, pair of questions to Bill, Ralph, and others: (1) What would it take to convince you that putting in a term or two as AD --not a life sentence, but a term or two-- was an obligation you, as long-term participants and contributors, owed the community? (2) How, if at all, would the AD job have to change in order to make volunteering on that basis plausible for you? Please don't just answer lower workload: if that is all or part of the answer, what would you get rid of and what would you do with it? john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative concern that involves the viability of the specification. As a practical matter, the line between normative and informative is likely grey enough to make this suggestion unworkable... interesting point. first question, then, is why has the ietf been finding it important to make the distinction between the two? second question is how do we distinguish between Discuss items that really do pertain to it won't work and it's unacceptably deficient concerns, versus an AD's personal preferences and whims? 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification and must provide clear direction as to how to cure the problem. Failing the ability to provide the detail about how to fix the specification, the AD must engage in a dialogue that has the goal of specifying that detail. I agree with the first clause; the concern must be explained and motivated in detail. The WG - not the AD or the doc authors in isolation - should develop the solution. This raises two issues. One is that the focus of the suggestion is making sure that an AD who asserts a late-stage veto is meaningfully obligated to work constructively to remove it. The other is that working groups rarely develop solutions. Participants or small sub-groups develop solutions; working groups review and approve. When a random participant raises a concern during specification development, the working group can readily acknowledge the issue and add it to the workload, or it can fail to gain traction. In the former case, the working group takes responsibility for finding the solution. In the latter, the issue is, effectively, turned back to the person with the concern. It is up to them to find some way to get the working group to embrace the concern; the usual way to do this is to propose a solution, so that the working group has a more solid sense of the topic. Now we move to a late-stage AD veto. The working group has put years of effort in and lots of review. Here comes an AD -- typically one who has not been involved until this point -- blocking progress by stating some concern. If the concern is obviously valid to everyone, then there is no issue. Everyone goes wow, we sure are glad you caught that, and goes off to fix it. The problem is when the AD's concern is not obviously valid, or at least not obviously valid as a valid reason for blocking progress. Today, there is almost no cost to the AD in these situations and, therefore, no pressure on them to be reasonable and constructive to resolve it. We need to change limits and incentives, to fix this. In order to deal with the issue of a pocket veto, whereby the AD is intractable but maintains the veto, there needs to be a mechanism to force review of the Discuss, either to assert that, indeed, it involves a valid showstopper (failure) of the specification or that it can be ignored. such a mechanism already exists. If you are referring to a classic Appeal, then that is too heavyweight and onerous. The cost to the participant, of making an appeal, is significant. If you are referring to something else, what is is and where is it documented? d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
A couple of thoughts... I'll buy #1. On #2, when an AD posts a DISCUSS, s/he is now required to post a comment to the id tracker. I don't think you want the AD to have to write it twice. Coming back to a comment that was made earlier (and has been made on [EMAIL PROTECTED], which IMHO is a better place to have this part of the discussion) what you want is an automated note sent to the WG mailing list (or in the case of an individual submission, to the authors) indicating that the draft's tracker entry has been updated and giving a URL to go read it. On your third comment, which you didn't number, there has been a mechanism for resolving a pocket veto since about 1997 or 1998, when two different ADs in fact were carrying out pocket vetoes. One of them was doing so by not forwarding documents from his area to the IESG for review, and the nomcom eventually removed him. The other was placing a DISCUSS during the IESG review on then being non-responsive in the ensuing dialog. To deal with the latter case, the IESG adopted a procedure in which a restricted set of answers were acceptable: YES or NO, no DISCUSS, ABSTAIN, or NO OBJECTION. If two ADs voted NO, the document was returned to the working group, and otherwise the DISCUSS was overridden. In my tenure, the procedure was never exercised, but it was threatened on occasion, and in the particular case (IIRC) the document was returned to the working group - it did in fact have some serious issues. I have been looking at the following paragraph for a little while and rewording around one of our odd distinctions. Sometimes documents come to the IESG from a working group, and sometimes they come as individual submissions placed by one or more authors. What I want is the largest relevant inclusion - if a document comes from a working group, the comments should go to the working group, and if it comes as an individual submission it should go to all of the authors. I note this is not the current practice - I have had a number of discussions with ADs on documents submitted as personal submissions where I alone among the authors was addressed by an AD, and a number of discussions on WG documents where I alone or the set of authors was mentioned, but not the working group. But let me define a term: to me, for the purposes of discussion, a working group is the mailing list it uses or the assembled participants at an IETF meeting or interim working group meeting, and when a document is submitted personally by a set of authors, the working group is that entire set of authors. With that definition... I think we need to give the ADs a little credit here. Your use of the terms intractable and veto make them sound pretty awful. In fact, when an AD feels that strongly about something, there is usually at least some merit to the position. What I would really prefer to see happen when things come to a head like that - which isn't all that often - is for the document to be returned to the WG, the AD to talk with the WG (in email or in person) about the issues, and work with the WG to come to closure on the issues. On Apr 30, 2005, at 8:53 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: I'd rather force DISCUSS to be very explicit about the reason, and be limited to the areas mentioned, but specifically prohibit last-pass edits of the sort that ought to happen during last call or within the WG. Let me suggest that the rules be quite simple: 1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative concern that involves the viability of the specification. 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification and must provide clear direction as to how to cure the problem. Failing the ability to provide the detail about how to fix the specification, the AD must engage in a dialogue that has the goal of specifying that detail. In order to deal with the issue of a pocket veto, whereby the AD is intractable but maintains the veto, there needs to be a mechanism to force review of the Discuss, either to assert that, indeed, it involves a valid showstopper (failure) of the specification or that it can be ignored. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Fred, On #2, when an AD posts a DISCUSS, s/he is now required to post a comment ... what you want is an automated note sent to the WG sounds dandy. On your third comment, which you didn't number, there has been a mechanism for resolving a pocket veto since about 1997 or 1998, ... To deal with the latter case, the IESG adopted a procedure in which a restricted set of answers were acceptable: YES or NO, no DISCUSS, ABSTAIN, or NO OBJECTION. If two ADs voted NO, the document was returned to the working group, and otherwise the DISCUSS was overridden. thanks for clarifying this. is it documented somewhere public? i wandered around the ietf.org site but didn't trip across it. I have been looking at the following paragraph for a little while and rewording around one of our odd distinctions. Sometimes documents come to the IESG from a working group, and sometimes they come as individual submissions placed by one or more authors. What I want is the largest relevant inclusion - if a document comes from a working group, the comments should go to the working group, and if it comes as an individual submission it should go to all of the authors. I'll see your largeness and raise you one: all documents subject to iesg review should have a cited venue for open public discussion. Given that such documents get an IETF-wide Last Call, it seems reasonable to direct folks somewhere other than the ietf mailing list. And that's were the AD comments should go, too, I think. But let me define a term: to me, for the purposes of discussion, a working group is ... ok. I think we need to give the ADs a little credit here. Your use of the terms intractable and veto make them sound pretty awful. FWIW I fully understand that and have chosen them intentionally. I am trying to discuss a situation constrained by a narrow set of conditions and, yes, the situation is indeed awful. It is also a real and periodic part of the IETF landscape -- and it has been going back to pre-Kobe. In fact, it is related to what I believe was at the core of the chronic discontent that led to the Kobe revolt. And that's why I see the issue as fundamentally structural, rather than personal. It happens too regularly, across too many different personalities -- most of whom have otherwise excellent track records -- to believe that this is just a matter of a random AD going astray. We are talking about conditions that we all hope are at the boundary. Unfortunately there seems to be pretty solid community consensus that it does occur. So, I am focusing on the case of an AD being the problem. There are, of course, cases where working groups are the problem -- which is, after all, why we need to retain meaningful late-stage review and, yes, refusal. But that is not my focus at the moment. In this AD-at-the-boundary condition, the perception from the outside is that the AD is being intractable. It does not matter that the AD is certain to think they are trying to do good things. What matters is that valid attempts to resolve matters do not make progress and that there is strong indication that the problem is the AD and not the working group. In these cases, the effect of that AD's discuss is really a pure veto. In fact, when an AD feels that strongly about something, there is usually at least some merit to the position. What I would really prefer to see happen when things come to a head like that - which isn't all that often - is for the document to be returned to the WG, the AD to talk with the WG (in email or in person) about the issues, and work with the WG to come to closure on the issues. That's not when things come to a head. We used to have a problem getting the objecting AD to talk with the working group but my sense is that that is not a problem anymore. So, I consider public followup with the working group, by the AD, to a natural and obligatory step immediately after the Discuss and, from what I can tell, it happens regularly. So, that's not the problem. The problem is after that, when there are legitimate efforts by the working group to understand and resolve matters. However they are not able to for any of the usual array of reasons that legitimately permit characterizing the AD as being intractable. This is what the override procedure you have described appears to be designed to deal with. So it's good to hear about it. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Keith Moore wrote: Let me suggest that the rules be quite simple: 1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative concern that involves the viability of the specification. not reasonable. even merely informative text can cause interoperability problems if it is wrong or misleading. Informative text that leads to such problems is incorrectly classified; it must be normative if it causes interoperability problems. 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification and must provide clear direction as to how to cure the problem. Failing the ability to provide the detail about how to fix the specification, the AD must engage in a dialogue that has the goal of specifying that detail. not reasonable. it's fine for an AD to provide suggestions as to how to resolve an issue, but it's not the AD's job to actually resolve issues that need to be sorted out at length either within the WG or between that WG and other parties. An AD can't merely raise an issue without specifying the criteria by which the issue can be resolved. Being able to cause a problem or roadblock without being required to state the conditions to remove it is a recipe for abuse. In order to deal with the issue of a pocket veto, whereby the AD is intractable but maintains the veto, there needs to be a mechanism to force review of the Discuss, either to assert that, indeed, it involves a valid showstopper (failure) of the specification or that it can be ignored. such a mechanism already exists. Right now the onus is on the author to get around such a roadblock; the onus ought to be on the AD to justify it first. Joe signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. I disagree that the ADs are necessarily that much more technically astute than the rest of us. 1. ADs usually _are_ more technically astute than the average IETF participant (perhaps not you, but the average participant), because ADs are selected for their expertise while IETF participants are self-selecting. (Maybe some are selected by their employers, but I don't think it's generally the practice of most employers to send their best technical people to standards committees. My impression is that many employers - not all by any means - would rather send people who are expendable, and/or who will represent the company's official position rather than their own best judgment.) 2. ADs also tend to have a broader perspective than the average IETF participant, because ADs are exposed to everything that IETF does while most participants' activity is confined to a narrow topic area. That's not to say that a broad perspective is inherently less valuable than a narrow perspective - they're both valuable, but for different reasons. But both of those are less relevant than the fact that it's IESG's _job_ to make judgments about the quality of specifications and protocols, and that this is a _necessary_ job. WGs are too frequently insular and too frequently want to make unacceptable compromises - somebody has to serve as a check against that. Somebody has to resolve conflicts between competing concerns. Somebody has to make sure that the specifications are complete. etc. I would actually feel more comfortable with ADs providing their technical judgment with the rest of us, through the same mechanism: WG or IETF last call. And that technical judgment should be expressed openly, in an archived WG mailing list, where everyone's technical input can be reviewed and everyone who provides technical input can be held accountable. I have mixed feelings about this. I believe that often it is the case that ADs providing technical input through the WG mailing list, and participating in discussions on that list, is the most effective way to resolve the differences. On the other hand, mailing lists that are focused on a narrow topic are not good places for resolution of issues that involve concerns outside the WG's scope - the WG tends to dismiss those concerns out-of-hand even though they are valid. Also it is impractical for every AD to participate in lengthy discussions with every WG whose work is commented on - where each message to a WG from an AD could elicit several responses, each expecting a response from the AD who is reviewing dozens of documents every week. I can imagine a process that encourages the responsible AD and document author (and/or chair) to go over the DISCUSS comments together and to identify those which are noncontroversial and those which need further discussion. The proposed resolution of the noncontroversial issues and the list of controversial issues should certainly be presented to the WG, and perhaps the WG should be encouraged to identify potential compromises on the controversial issues. If the WG comes up with reasonable compromises, that's great. But in general I don't think we can afford to insist that such issues be resolved on the WG mailing list in an discussion with the ADs. Just like a design team within a WG might need to work out compromises within itself (to be ratified by the larger group), so might the chair, authors, and ADs need to work out compromises at that level. I don't think that it's feasible to insist that all issues raised by ADs be raised in Last Call, because ADs also have to make judgments about the importance and validity of Last Call comments, and they may even have to reconcile differences between conflicting Last Call comments. What this means is that there are always going to be some issues raised after Last Call - and it's not clear that having two separate AD review phases in the process would an improvement (in my experience, the more often I read a document, the harder it became to notice the effects of changes to that document). But of course I do favor ADs (and others) bringing issues to a WG's attention as early as possible. Ideally those issues should be raised long before Last Call time, and long before the WG thinks the design is frozen. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Hi Ralph, I would actually feel more comfortable with ADs providing their technical judgment with the rest of us, through the same mechanism: WG or IETF last call. And that technical judgment should be expressed openly, in an archived WG mailing list, where everyone's technical input can be reviewed and everyone who provides technical input can be held accountable. FWIW, this seems fairly easy to implement even now, with (1) The introduction of the tracker that records comments so that they can be accessed in a public manner. (2) The practise where DISCUSS comment resolution is brought back to the WG list (unless the comments are obvious and non- controversial enough to be simply put in by the editor). Some WGs are doing this already. Just yesterday we had a discussion on the IPv6 list about one DISCUSS and how to resolve it. --Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or control (veto power). Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open mailing lists during last calls, to make sure their technical input is on the same footing as everyone else's technical input. I agree that the IESG's job is to ensure correctness, completeness, etc. That feedback should be provided earlier, in an open forum. If a particular AD doesn't have cycles to monitor every last call - and, as the AD has to review the doc and to a technical review, anyway, I'm not sure monitoring last call discussions would consume many more cycles than the current process - the AD could call on an expert or a directorate to participate in the open process. But, I'm indulging in generating solutions rather than identifying problems. I guess the problem I see is separating technical analysis from process management... - Ralph On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 02:01 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. I disagree that the ADs are necessarily that much more technically astute than the rest of us. 1. ADs usually _are_ more technically astute than the average IETF participant (perhaps not you, but the average participant), because ADs are selected for their expertise while IETF participants are self-selecting. (Maybe some are selected by their employers, but I don't think it's generally the practice of most employers to send their best technical people to standards committees. My impression is that many employers - not all by any means - would rather send people who are expendable, and/or who will represent the company's official position rather than their own best judgment.) 2. ADs also tend to have a broader perspective than the average IETF participant, because ADs are exposed to everything that IETF does while most participants' activity is confined to a narrow topic area. That's not to say that a broad perspective is inherently less valuable than a narrow perspective - they're both valuable, but for different reasons. But both of those are less relevant than the fact that it's IESG's _job_ to make judgments about the quality of specifications and protocols, and that this is a _necessary_ job. WGs are too frequently insular and too frequently want to make unacceptable compromises - somebody has to serve as a check against that. Somebody has to resolve conflicts between competing concerns. Somebody has to make sure that the specifications are complete. etc. I would actually feel more comfortable with ADs providing their technical judgment with the rest of us, through the same mechanism: WG or IETF last call. And that technical judgment should be expressed openly, in an archived WG mailing list, where everyone's technical input can be reviewed and everyone who provides technical input can be held accountable. I have mixed feelings about this. I believe that often it is the case that ADs providing technical input through the WG mailing list, and participating in discussions on that list, is the most effective way to resolve the differences. On the other hand, mailing lists that are focused on a narrow topic are not good places for resolution of issues that involve concerns outside the WG's scope - the WG tends to dismiss those concerns out-of-hand even though they are valid. Also it is impractical for every AD to participate in lengthy discussions with every WG whose work is commented on - where each message to a WG from an AD could elicit several responses, each expecting a response from the AD who is reviewing dozens of documents every week. I can imagine a process that encourages the responsible AD and document author (and/or chair) to go over the DISCUSS comments together and to identify those which are noncontroversial and those which need further discussion. The proposed resolution of the noncontroversial issues and the list of controversial issues should certainly be presented to the WG, and perhaps the WG should be encouraged to identify potential compromises on the controversial issues. If the WG comes up with reasonable compromises, that's great. But in general I don't think we can afford to insist that such issues be resolved on the WG mailing list in an discussion with the ADs. Just like a design team within a WG might need to work out compromises within itself (to be ratified by the larger group), so might the chair, authors, and ADs need to work out compromises at that level. I don't think that it's feasible to insist that all issues
RE: text suggested by ADs
FWIW, this seems fairly easy to implement even now, with (1) The introduction of the tracker that records comments so that they can be accessed in a public manner. (2) The practise where DISCUSS comment resolution is brought back to the WG list (unless the comments are obvious and non- controversial enough to be simply put in by the editor). You miss out (3) TELL PEOPLE ABOUT THE TRACKER THAT EXISTS. There is actually a tracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi Once again we come back to one of the core problems with the IETF processes being a complete lack of information on the Web site. Many of the issues that have been debated at exhaustive length in NEWTRACK could have been solved by simply putting the necessary information on the web site. For example finding out even a simple matter such as the status of an RFC is not possible by using the Web site unless you happen to know special information such as the fact that this is in periodically issued RFCs with 00 numbers. This information is on the 'Working Group Chairs' page, not the 'ID authors' page or more usefully the Internet drafts page. The current IETF Web site appears to have been written by someone whose ideal of user documentation is the UNIX man pages. It does not appear to have changed at all since the first time I saw it in fact. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Let me also restate for clarity: Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically astute than *all* the rest of us. That is, we need to be careful that technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or control (veto power). There's no way to avoid that happening and still have quality control. Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open mailing lists during last calls, to make sure their technical input is on the same footing as everyone else's technical input. I agree that the IESG's job is to ensure correctness, completeness, etc. That feedback should be provided earlier, in an open forum. I agree that input should be provided as early as possible. But some kinds of feedback inherently follow Last Call, and limiting IESG input to before Last Call would just serve to make the process even slower than it already is (by requiring multiple IESG reviews rather than just one), while lowering publication quality (by preventing IESG from objecting to valid technical issues noticed after Last Call, and perhaps discovered while considering Last Call input, but not directly related to issues raised in Last Call). Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Hi Phillip, This information is on the 'Working Group Chairs' page, not the 'ID authors' page or more usefully the Internet drafts page. The I-D tracker *is* actually on the Internet drafts page (I think this was a recent change): http://www.ietf.org/ID.html But in general, yes, we could use more information and easier availability. I confess that I don't even remember where the RFC status page is. But there's been many improvements of this type lately, like what the tools team is working on now that allows you to get a better view of the overall ID/RFC status in a working from single page etc. See e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/wg/radext/ The current IETF Web site appears to have been written by someone whose ideal of user documentation is the UNIX man pages. I don't understand -- what could ever be better than a UNIX man page? ;-) --Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Friday, April 29, 2005 09:18:08 AM -0700 Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You miss out (3) TELL PEOPLE ABOUT THE TRACKER THAT EXISTS. There is actually a tracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi Which has been linked to from the internet-drafts page for quite some time now. It's also been mentioned in IETF plenaries and in numerous other forums. I certainly knew about it well before becoming a WG chair. The fact that others are proposing that the IETF build this type of tool is evidence that others have the same problem. Many people do not attend every IETF. There should also be a prominent link to the datatracker from each working group page. If you mean what is the standards status of RFC; what updates or obsoletes it, etc, that information is in the rfc-index.txt file, and has been for as long as I can remember. Even knowing that the file exists it takes me a lot of time to find each time I need to refer to it. The IETF site is one of the few where I have learned to use google as the primary navigation tool. If the STD series is going to be useful then the tool that spits out the current status of the RFCs should spit out HTML pages with the RFCs indexed by status. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
* * If the STD series is going to be useful then the tool that spits out the * current status of the RFCs should spit out HTML pages with the RFCs * indexed by status. * Presumably you mean: http://www.rfc-editor.org/category.html Bob Braden ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
From: Bob Braden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * If the STD series is going to be useful then the tool that spits out the * current status of the RFCs should spit out HTML pages with the RFCs * indexed by status. * Presumably you mean: http://www.rfc-editor.org/category.html Which is linked from the rfc-editor's site, not from the home page of the IETF whose documents they are. If we go to www.ietf.org with the objective of finding current Internet standards and follow the obvious navigation links we don't get there. http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html is worse than useless, unless you know that the RFC-Editor's pages is where the status is you cannot find what you went to get. It is not logical to look on the RFC-Editor's site for information that results from decisions of the IESG. It would be much better to merge the two pages into one so that someone who comes looking for the information on an RFC can find it. Equally the RFC-Editor Queue information is really tracking the status of internet drafts, not RFCs. Basically the Web site design is from a much earlier era when people accessed the web from 14K dial up and web site designers were taught to only put five navigation options per web page. If you look at the OASIS and W3C pages you will see that this particular guideline has been long abandonded. Taxonomic navigation only works if people already understand the categories being used, the categories used on the IETF site are vague, confused and arbitrary. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Jeff, To clarify, I was suggesting that we think about something a little different. Not an expanded IESG (which I agree would be a poor idea), or deputy ADs, but a separate body, such that we had one body charged with management/coordination and another one charged with review/approval and with neither superior to, or reporting to, the other. The problems I see with deputy ADs, review committees, strengthened directorates, etc., are all, ultimately, the same: We select very responsible people to serve on the IESG. As long as they are, and feel, responsible, these additional bodies or groups may help with the quality of review and may speed it up, but most ADs, most of the time, will feel a need to still do the reviews themselves, take responsibility for writeups issued in their names, etc. And they will have more people to manage. The only way out of that trap is a separate review body. Of course, that has its own set of problems and issues, as others have pointed out, but it would change the time equation and the management/advocacy/decision conflicts and relationships. I don't see additional structures that report to the IESG changing either of those significantly. john --On Thursday, 28 April, 2005 20:39 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Exactly right. We select AD's based on their technical expertise, and expect them to use that expertise in reviewing documents that come their way. This is one of the reasons why it's hard to lighten AD load by getting other people to do reviews -- the expectation is that AD's will actually review the documents they approve, at least to some extent. I think that talk about expanding the IESG is approaching the problem along the wrong tack. Rather than making the management structure more top-heavy, why not introduce an additional layer? Specifically, I'm thinking of a model in which AD's would appoint some number of deputy AD's who would review and comment on (assigned) documents in the AD's place. This is somewhat more formal than the current directorate model, in which directorate members may assist with reviews but the AD still has to personally review every document (or perhaps, 50% of all documents, depending on how work is divided in areas with two AD's). This is how large organizations scale management tasks -- they introduce layers of indirection and abstraction. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
* If the STD series is going to be useful then the tool that spits out the * current status of the RFCs should spit out HTML pages with the RFCs * indexed by status. * Presumably you mean: http://www.rfc-editor.org/category.html bob, I've just looked at rfc-editor.org and rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Neither of them give any indication that there is such a means of listing STDs. For that matter http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html lists indices to RFCs, FYIs and BCPs, but not to STDs! d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
That's because its like one of those early adventure games where the view of the site depends on which door you enter by. I don't know if there is a link from the RFC editor pages to the material Bob cited. I had not clicked on the link in the RFC listings pages marked RFC editor because I always assumed that it links to the same material as the RFC Editor pages. The IETF web site is like navigating a automated phone dial tree designed by one of those customer service execs whose objective is to loose as many complaints as possible. -Original Message- From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:47 PM To: Bob Braden; Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: text suggested by ADs * If the STD series is going to be useful then the tool that spits out the * current status of the RFCs should spit out HTML pages with the RFCs * indexed by status. * Presumably you mean: http://www.rfc-editor.org/category.html bob, I've just looked at rfc-editor.org and rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Neither of them give any indication that there is such a means of listing STDs. For that matter http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html lists indices to RFCs, FYIs and BCPs, but not to STDs! d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
At 02:46 PM 4/29/2005 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: * If the STD series is going to be useful then the tool that spits out the * current status of the RFCs should spit out HTML pages with the RFCs * indexed by status. * Presumably you mean: http://www.rfc-editor.org/category.html Dave, The URL above works for me as posted. On that page, it clearly says RFC Sub-series, and under that, Standards (STD). bob, I've just looked at rfc-editor.org and rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Neither of them give any indication that there is such a means of listing STDs. The URL I gave above is the 6th bullet on the rfc.html page. (It is so far down because people don't very often seem to want RFCs simply listed by category (status)). For that matter http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html lists indices to RFCs, FYIs and BCPs, but not to STDs! Actually, that page lists 10 different views of the RFC collection. The hyper- linked FYI and BCP subsets are contained in the 5th one down. STDs are not listed here because (1) STDs are listed elsewhere on the page, and (2) people usually really want the information in Official Internet Protocol Standards, which is the first link on the page. I am a little surprised that this is a surprise to you. A good deal of thought and effort went into creating these views. Bob Braden d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
Bob, http://www.rfc-editor.org/category.html The URL above works for me as posted. On that page, it clearly says RFC Sub-series, and under that, Standards (STD). It worked for me too. I'm delighted to see that it existence. My point was that there is no obvious way for anyone to know that it exists. they can't go to the home page for the rfc editor and find it in any way that is obvious to me. I did try to figure this out before posting my note. On the average, I am a good test case for these sorts of human factors issues, since I make lots of errors. So if it works for me it will work for somewhat below-average users. And I could not find the information. The URL I gave above is the 6th bullet on the rfc.html page. (It is so far down because people don't very often seem to want RFCs simply listed by category (status)). After repeatedly trying to use this latest comment, I finally figured out which bullet you meant. Sorry. Even knowing what it points to it doesn't work for me. But I'm starting to appreciate the challenge, here, given the range of entries on the page being pointed to. So i don't have an obvious suggestion for how to change the bullet. I am a little surprised that this is a surprise to you. A good deal of thought and effort went into creating these views. That's clear. Unfortunately, users who walk up a use a tool with no training often see and think about it very differently from the tool's designers. there is a reason the the human factors area of usability is difficult. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference between the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the process. If I may read between the lines here, it sounds like you're suggesting some sort of reality-check process that is more lightweight than a full appeal. Informally, we have that -- if one AD is giving me a hard time for a dumb reason, I can ask another AD to try to talk some sense into them. But that only works if the participant has a good relationship with another AD, and while you hope that's true for WG chairs, that might not always be good enough. Yup - it relies too much on goodwill and who-knows-whom, which is unfair to those who are trying to get things through for the first time. Working with the personalities can always avoid such issues; the rules are there to provide guidance where that either isn't possible or breaks down. So maybe your concern would be addressed by some sort of discuss override mechanism, by which the IESG could actively decide that a discuss is inappropriate and disregard it. Such a mechanism would have to be invoked explicitly, and would perhaps involve a consensus call by the IESG chair... I'd rather force DISCUSS to be very explicit about the reason, and be limited to the areas mentioned, but specifically prohibit last-pass edits of the sort that ought to happen during last call or within the WG. Joe -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCcrdQE5f5cImnZrsRAv6QAJ9xLw4HlJVRQMuX6zpajOi+lz83cQCg41jt Gm2SV9e5FCxJil4UmVvdJjU= =76dT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: the Web site design is from a much earlier era when people accessed the web from 14K dial up and web site designers were taught to only put five navigation options per web page. My V.90 is not much better than 14K, and a Web design allowing access with poor bandwidth is still perfection, also known as do as amazon does. The rfc-editor pages are generally fine. There are of course ways to improve things, e.g. if I see an interesting I-D I'd like to know where to send public comments without subscription hurdles, and I'd like a way to track its way through the iETF independent of minor changes like a new document name (i.e. something like a PURL), etc. the RFC-Editor Queue information is really tracking the status of internet drafts, not RFCs. It's only the POV of the rfc-editor, the IESG has its own POV. They are different, where's the problem with this ? Merging these state diagrams could be a dubious move, they are already very convoluted. I've never found out who or what deadir is, and I've no idea who added a known to be harmful RfC editor note to a draft I'm interested in. Maybe it's a bug in this tracker business. Bye, Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
I'd rather force DISCUSS to be very explicit about the reason, and be limited to the areas mentioned, but specifically prohibit last-pass edits of the sort that ought to happen during last call or within the WG. Let me suggest that the rules be quite simple: 1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative concern that involves the viability of the specification. 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification and must provide clear direction as to how to cure the problem. Failing the ability to provide the detail about how to fix the specification, the AD must engage in a dialogue that has the goal of specifying that detail. In order to deal with the issue of a pocket veto, whereby the AD is intractable but maintains the veto, there needs to be a mechanism to force review of the Discuss, either to assert that, indeed, it involves a valid showstopper (failure) of the specification or that it can be ignored. d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Let me suggest that the rules be quite simple: 1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative concern that involves the viability of the specification. not reasonable. even merely informative text can cause interoperability problems if it is wrong or misleading. 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification and must provide clear direction as to how to cure the problem. Failing the ability to provide the detail about how to fix the specification, the AD must engage in a dialogue that has the goal of specifying that detail. not reasonable. it's fine for an AD to provide suggestions as to how to resolve an issue, but it's not the AD's job to actually resolve issues that need to be sorted out at length either within the WG or between that WG and other parties. In order to deal with the issue of a pocket veto, whereby the AD is intractable but maintains the veto, there needs to be a mechanism to force review of the Discuss, either to assert that, indeed, it involves a valid showstopper (failure) of the specification or that it can be ignored. such a mechanism already exists. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 19:56 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: Let me suggest that the rules be quite simple: 1. A Discuss may be asserted only when it pertains to a normative concern that involves the viability of the specification. not reasonable. even merely informative text can cause interoperability problems if it is wrong or misleading. As a practical matter, the line between normative and informative is likely grey enough to make this suggestion unworkable... 2. The AD raising the Discuss must post the details of their concern to the mailing list targeted to that specification and must provide clear direction as to how to cure the problem. Failing the ability to provide the detail about how to fix the specification, the AD must engage in a dialogue that has the goal of specifying that detail. not reasonable. it's fine for an AD to provide suggestions as to how to resolve an issue, but it's not the AD's job to actually resolve issues that need to be sorted out at length either within the WG or between that WG and other parties. I agree with the first clause; the concern must be explained and motivated in detail. The WG - not the AD or the doc authors in isolation - should develop the solution. In order to deal with the issue of a pocket veto, whereby the AD is intractable but maintains the veto, there needs to be a mechanism to force review of the Discuss, either to assert that, indeed, it involves a valid showstopper (failure) of the specification or that it can be ignored. such a mechanism already exists. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Keith, There is another case, and I think it is the one to which John was referring. 1. The WG comes up with some text, believing that text is accurate and appropriate. 2. An AD lodges a discuss, demanding a change in the text and supplies the desired target text. 3. The author and/or WG conclude that the suggested change is unnecessary and actually makes the document worse, but does not change things sufficiently to be worth a long, protracted, and certainly unpleasant battle. 4. Based on (3), the author and/or WG say ok, whatever you like, make the change. I think that, if we confuse this with everybody is happy with the suggested text, or the process working well, we are in bad trouble. One of our more interesting difficulties is that it is really hard to tell this case from AD suggests a change, everyone agrees that it is a clear improvement. Document Editors and WG Chairs usually know the difference, but even the AD may not actually know, since the answer ok,..., make the change may be the same in both this case and the everyone is happy one. Where it does lead is to simmering resentments, and even doubts about whether the IETF is the right place to get work done. If an AD regularly demands this type of change (remember, I'm not talking about major technical omissions or disagreements here), those resentments and doubts will tend to get cumulatively worse the longer the AD remains on the IESG and the more that the IESG members tolerate demands for that sort of change from their colleagues. And, if it isn't clear, I believe that an I'm going to lodge and hold a DISCUSS until you change that position is a demand, whether or not it is appropriate in a particular situation. john --On Thursday, 28 April, 2005 14:12 -0400 Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu wrote: So, as a recipient of a DISCUSS, I've learned the hard way that the easiest way to resolve a DISCUSS is to ask the IESG member for the exact text they want added and be done with it. I don't think this is the correct way to do things, but after working on a document for x number of years and trying to push it through the last mile, often document editors just want to get it done. When, as sometimes happens, everybody is happy with the suggested text, that process works well. We get closure on the issue in a short time. The problem is when authors or WGs demand that the IESG provide text that resolves a thorny technical problem. Sometimes the IESG needs to say no, you can't do X, and it's your job - not ours - to find a different way to solve that problem. IESG is in a much better position to find technical flaws than to craft delicate compromises between competing interests. And sometimes it is counterproductive for the AD to suggest a compromise even when he has an idea for something that might work -as WG participants will fight an idea from an AD more than they would fight the same idea from one of their own. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
John, I agree - the situation you describe does occur. However such cases include major technical omissions and disagreements in addition to minor technical differences. Actually I suspect that this boils down to a disagreement between the AD and the author/chair about whether the technical omission or disagreement is a major one. Sometimes the AD is right, sometimes the author or chair is. I think the ADs should continue to be able to raise such issues, but I also think it might be helpful to have better way of resolving such disputes than either let the AD win or let's sit on this until the IESG holds its nose and passes it. Keith There is another case, and I think it is the one to which John was referring. 1. The WG comes up with some text, believing that text is accurate and appropriate. 2. An AD lodges a discuss, demanding a change in the text and supplies the desired target text. 3. The author and/or WG conclude that the suggested change is unnecessary and actually makes the document worse, but does not change things sufficiently to be worth a long, protracted, and certainly unpleasant battle. 4. Based on (3), the author and/or WG say ok, whatever you like, make the change. I think that, if we confuse this with everybody is happy with the suggested text, or the process working well, we are in bad trouble. One of our more interesting difficulties is that it is really hard to tell this case from AD suggests a change, everyone agrees that it is a clear improvement. Document Editors and WG Chairs usually know the difference, but even the AD may not actually know, since the answer ok,..., make the change may be the same in both this case and the everyone is happy one. Where it does lead is to simmering resentments, and even doubts about whether the IETF is the right place to get work done. If an AD regularly demands this type of change (remember, I'm not talking about major technical omissions or disagreements here), those resentments and doubts will tend to get cumulatively worse the longer the AD remains on the IESG and the more that the IESG members tolerate demands for that sort of change from their colleagues. And, if it isn't clear, I believe that an I'm going to lodge and hold a DISCUSS until you change that position is a demand, whether or not it is appropriate in a particular situation. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Keith, The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well. Keith Moore wrote: John, I agree - the situation you describe does occur. However such cases include major technical omissions and disagreements in addition to minor technical differences. Actually I suspect that this boils down to a disagreement between the AD and the author/chair about whether the technical omission or disagreement is a major one. Sometimes the AD is right, sometimes the author or chair is. And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG. I.e., this is the point where the AD is asking for changes based on what I consider individual input. I think the ADs should continue to be able to raise such issues, but I also think it might be helpful to have better way of resolving such disputes than either let the AD win or let's sit on this until the IESG holds its nose and passes it. Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to what can you add/change to appease the other AD rather than what is sensible to add. Joe Keith There is another case, and I think it is the one to which John was referring. 1. The WG comes up with some text, believing that text is accurate and appropriate. 2. An AD lodges a discuss, demanding a change in the text and supplies the desired target text. 3. The author and/or WG conclude that the suggested change is unnecessary and actually makes the document worse, but does not change things sufficiently to be worth a long, protracted, and certainly unpleasant battle. 4. Based on (3), the author and/or WG say ok, whatever you like, make the change. I think that, if we confuse this with everybody is happy with the suggested text, or the process working well, we are in bad trouble. One of our more interesting difficulties is that it is really hard to tell this case from AD suggests a change, everyone agrees that it is a clear improvement. Document Editors and WG Chairs usually know the difference, but even the AD may not actually know, since the answer ok,..., make the change may be the same in both this case and the everyone is happy one. Where it does lead is to simmering resentments, and even doubts about whether the IETF is the right place to get work done. If an AD regularly demands this type of change (remember, I'm not talking about major technical omissions or disagreements here), those resentments and doubts will tend to get cumulatively worse the longer the AD remains on the IESG and the more that the IESG members tolerate demands for that sort of change from their colleagues. And, if it isn't clear, I believe that an I'm going to lodge and hold a DISCUSS until you change that position is a demand, whether or not it is appropriate in a particular situation. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ This message was passed through [EMAIL PROTECTED], which is a sublist of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not all messages are passed. Decisions on what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML Administrator ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCcVlnE5f5cImnZrsRAntpAKCYt0vdvFh041armyGvhtwjMyjx5QCgqTPa fx09/v0JsB4OSQ+0uTyc4eI= =fBAJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Hi - From: Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu Cc: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:45 PM Subject: Re: text suggested by ADs ... Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to what can you add/change to appease the other AD rather than what is sensible to add. ... Though this is an interesting discussion, it is so far removed from my own experience as a document editor and WG chair that I have to wonder whether we've been working with the same IESG. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
And I've had much *worse* experiences with the IESG requiring changes to documents ... including receiving suggested text (after many months of the document disappearing into a black hole) that actually *reversed* text inserted earlier at the request of an AD. - Ralph On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 15:12 -0700, Randy Presuhn wrote: Hi - From: Joe Touch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu Cc: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:45 PM Subject: Re: text suggested by ADs ... Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to what can you add/change to appease the other AD rather than what is sensible to add. ... Though this is an interesting discussion, it is so far removed from my own experience as a document editor and WG chair that I have to wonder whether we've been working with the same IESG. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well. [...] And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. I think the ADs should continue to be able to raise such issues, but I also think it might be helpful to have better way of resolving such disputes than either let the AD win or let's sit on this until the IESG holds its nose and passes it. Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to what can you add/change to appease the other AD rather than what is sensible to add. It's as likely to boil down to how do we get this WG to realize that there really is a serious technical problem with what they've created? From a process viewpoint the two cases (one where a clueless AD is pushing back against a clueful WG, and another where a clueless WG is being pushed back on by a clueful AD) are equivalent, and it's difficult to change the process in a way that solves one of those problems without making the other one worse. (and yes, both of these are extreme (though not rare) cases - it can also be a conflict between different kinds of cluefulness, where there are legitimate concerns on both sides and it's hard for any individual to see enough of the picture on short notice to understand what kind of compromise would be reasonable.) Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Keith Moore wrote: The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well. [...] And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. The process of AD review in 2026 specifies a few distinct things: - check for end-runs around WGs - check for inter-WG consistency - check for clarity commensurate with the doc level - check for tech quality commensurate with the doc level The IAB is there to check for consistency with the the Internet, of course. There's no point in the AD review at which their _input_ to the document is solicited by the process in 2026; IMO, that's supposed to have happened beforehand (though it often does not it is not a good excuse for late input). I think the ADs should continue to be able to raise such issues, but I also think it might be helpful to have better way of resolving such disputes than either let the AD win or let's sit on this until the IESG holds its nose and passes it. Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to what can you add/change to appease the other AD rather than what is sensible to add. It's as likely to boil down to how do we get this WG to realize that there really is a serious technical problem with what they've created? That is a different issue when it occurs. From a process viewpoint the two cases (one where a clueless AD is pushing back against a clueful WG, and another where a clueless WG is being pushed back on by a clueful AD) are equivalent, and it's difficult to change the process in a way that solves one of those problems without making the other one worse. They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference between the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the process. (and yes, both of these are extreme (though not rare) cases - it can also be a conflict between different kinds of cluefulness, where there are legitimate concerns on both sides and it's hard for any individual to see enough of the picture on short notice to understand what kind of compromise would be reasonable.) Keith -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCcWYoE5f5cImnZrsRArZQAJ9zYKX8hne5hQ9d/sTtbCGQ2C1FzQCfZTZV GrP1TrjmCp7KMnmBoz75hvA= =x8dA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
Comments in line... - Ralph On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 18:28 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well. [...] And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. I disagree that the ADs are necessarily that much more technically astute than the rest of us. I would actually feel more comfortable with ADs providing their technical judgment with the rest of us, through the same mechanism: WG or IETF last call. And that technical judgment should be expressed openly, in an archived WG mailing list, where everyone's technical input can be reviewed and everyone who provides technical input can be held accountable. If whoever wants to provide technical input to make a significant change in a specification, be it an AD or a WG chair or ..., can't make a sufficiently convincing case, in an open WG mailing list, that there at least might not be rough consensus for a specification, then I would say the specification doesn't need the change. I think the ADs should continue to be able to raise such issues, but I also think it might be helpful to have better way of resolving such disputes than either let the AD win or let's sit on this until the IESG holds its nose and passes it. Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to what can you add/change to appease the other AD rather than what is sensible to add. It's as likely to boil down to how do we get this WG to realize that there really is a serious technical problem with what they've created? From a process viewpoint the two cases (one where a clueless AD is pushing back against a clueful WG, and another where a clueless WG is being pushed back on by a clueful AD) are equivalent, and it's difficult to change the process in a way that solves one of those problems without making the other one worse. OK, so if the AD or the external reviewer or whoever needs to push back, let's do it in the open, on a mailing list, during a last call... (and yes, both of these are extreme (though not rare) cases - it can also be a conflict between different kinds of cluefulness, where there are legitimate concerns on both sides and it's hard for any individual to see enough of the picture on short notice to understand what kind of compromise would be reasonable.) Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
Behalf Of Keith Moore Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:29 PM I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. My proposal for an SRV prefix to be defined for LDAP PKIX repositories is currently held up because of a series of issues that all have to do with the administration of issuing SRV prefixes and the SRV mechanism itself. In order to answer these objections I will have to spend quite a lot of time to compile a reply which has absolutely nothing to do with the technology and to the extend that there is a technology issue the question concerns the working of the SRV mechanism rather than the proposal. I don't think that I should have to fix SRV in order to get a prefix assignment. I don't think I should have to suggest administravia either. There should be a uniform policy here and it should have come from DNSEXT not PKIX. In every other forum I simply make up the SRV prefixes myself and stick them in the draft. The chance of accidental collision is insignificant. There are far more Windows applications than Internet communication protocols yet people seem to be able to cope with a 3 letter filetype extension astonishingly well. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. My proposal for an SRV prefix to be defined for LDAP PKIX repositories is currently held up because of a series of issues that all have to do with the administration of issuing SRV prefixes and the SRV mechanism itself. Phill, I haven't read your proposal or IESGs feedback on your proposal so this isn't a comment on either of those. But if your proposal uses technology X in such a way that it raises or uncovers technical issues about X, I don't see anything wrong (from a process point-of-view) with the IESG examining and attempting to resolve those issues before it lets your document go forward. If X is flawed (or the process of administering X is flawed), and your proposal depends on X, then in some sense that is a flaw in your proposal. This is true regardless of whether X is SRV, RSA, TCP, or whatever. Of course if a flaw were found in X it would make sense to reexamine the status of other protocols using X, but those are separate issues from whether _your_ document should move forward. It might be a poor decision on IESG's part, but that's what appeals are for. Judgment errors are not the same as process flaws, nor are they necessarily evidence of process flaws. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On Apr 28, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Keith Moore wrote: And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. That's fine when that is what they do. What you're hearing here is that it is not uniformly so. Let me give you a specific case. I have a document which is at this instant in the RFC Editor's queue. It was supposed to describe the outlines of a procedure for renumbering a network without a flag day - starting with a network using prefix A and ending with a network using prefix B, what steps does one go through to transition prefixes while providing all services all the time? The key issue is that one working group had in essence said there is a protocol designed; this is a done deal while the operations community was shaking its head in wonder at the naivety of that position. I wanted to get the wisdom of both groups on paper in one place and make specific actionable recommendations to operational staff planning to do such a thing. The IESG gave us a number of comments, some of which we dropped verbatim into the draft without much concern, and at least one of which sent the authors back into a fairly serious discussion amongst ourselves and resulted in a block of entirely new text. This is as you describe and how it should be. But one comment from the IESG was that they wanted a specific paragraph added that said (in essence) ULAs might be useful to help in renumbering, presumably by making one not need to renumber. As an aside, I don't see the real difference between a ULA and a site-local address - I think the RFC 3879 issues apply to both. But regardless, I don't see a procedural difference between changing from a ULA to some other kind of prefix or from some other kind of prefix to a ULA, and the statement that ULAs might be a third prefix that could be used by users of a site while other prefixes are being renumbered is at best conjectural and at worst a flat numbering system. The IESG statement did not address a technical flaw, was not specific, and was not actionable by a network manager who had decided to renumber his network and was looking for a procedure for doing so. And in my very private and most humble opinion, it was horse pucky. The AD simply wanted a reference to ULAs in the draft. The good news is that I was able to argue him out of it. I asked him for something specific and actionable, in the form of a statement of exactly what way the renumbering procedure was different when renumbering from or to a ULA as against some other prefix, and told him that if he provided specific actionable text I would include it. He dropped the discussion. The issue here is that ADs are human, with all the flaws the rest of us have. Yes, they try pretty hard to make the documents that come out of working groups right, and they have to work pretty hard to make that happen. They also have their hobby-horses, and make comments during IESG review that should have been made AD hat off on the mailing list. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. That's fine when that is what they do. What you're hearing here is that it is not uniformly so. Yes, I understand that, and many of us can cite specific cases where the power was inappropriately used. But from a _process_ point-of-view, I don't see how to avoid the potential for misuse and still get the review that seems essential to keeping the quality level up. We try to arrange that there are alternatives to having good proposals killed or stalled by capricious ADs - like appeals, the process that IESG now has to bypass a single member's DISCUSS, the independent submission process via the RFC Editor, etc. And maybe we need more alternatives. But I don't see how to get rid of the review. The issue here is that ADs are human, with all the flaws the rest of us have. Yes, they try pretty hard to make the documents that come out of working groups right, and they have to work pretty hard to make that happen. They also have their hobby-horses, and make comments during IESG review that should have been made AD hat off on the mailing list. yes, yes, and yes. Keith p.s. FWIW IMnsHO, ULAs, while useful, are at best only a small part of a satisfactory solution for keeping addresses stable across renumbering, even for applications that entirely run on local networks. Even to explain why this is the case is not simple, but briefly: a) There are multiple reasons for a site to use ULAs (some more defensible than others) and it's not reasonable for an application to assume that a ULA is more appropriate for any particular purpose than any other prefix. Different applications will have different requirements for addressing (some need stable addresses, others need privacy, others need maximum efficiency/throughput or minimum delay, others need addresses that are reachable by all participating hosts) and these requirements can even change depending on the set of hosts participating in an application. A default set of address selection rules (as we are already seeing) will not work well. It appears possible to design a protocol that allows the network to tell hosts when ULA prefixes are equivalent to, but more stable than, other prefixes advertised on the network (and I wrote an I-D describing such a protocol), and it's possible to design an API extension which allows apps to say please use stable addresses on this connection when available. This would allow ULA-aware apps to make use of ULAs when they are available and when the network operator believes ULAs are more stable than PA or other prefixes. But that requires a lot more than just the existence of ULAs to be workable, and even then, they only solve the stability problem for what is arguably a corner case. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
On Thursday, April 28, 2005 06:28:48 PM -0400 Keith Moore moore@cs.utk.edu wrote: The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well. [...] And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some other WG. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. Exactly right. We select AD's based on their technical expertise, and expect them to use that expertise in reviewing documents that come their way. This is one of the reasons why it's hard to lighten AD load by getting other people to do reviews -- the expectation is that AD's will actually review the documents they approve, at least to some extent. I think that talk about expanding the IESG is approaching the problem along the wrong tack. Rather than making the management structure more top-heavy, why not introduce an additional layer? Specifically, I'm thinking of a model in which AD's would appoint some number of deputy AD's who would review and comment on (assigned) documents in the AD's place. This is somewhat more formal than the current directorate model, in which directorate members may assist with reviews but the AD still has to personally review every document (or perhaps, 50% of all documents, depending on how work is divided in areas with two AD's). This is how large organizations scale management tasks -- they introduce layers of indirection and abstraction. -- Jeff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
So maybe your concern would be addressed by some sort of discuss override mechanism, by which the IESG could actively decide that a discuss is inappropriate and disregard it. Such a mechanism would have to be invoked explicitly, and would perhaps involve a consensus call by the IESG chair... I believe such a mechanism already exists. At least, we established such a mechanism while I was on IESG. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: text suggested by ADs
If the process of administering SRV needs to be fixed then the people who see the problem should be responsible for suggesting fixes to it. As far as I am concerned the output from the IESG in such a situation should be to send a message to the DNSEXT WG to fix the percieved problem. I do not see why it helps matters for the PKIX group to do so. In fact the particular 'issues' raised were from a reviewer who essentially demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what the SRV and NAPTR schemes do and what the proposal being made was. If I propose to use IETF specification X and the approach works then the IESG should respect that decision and not start redesigning the protocol and second guessing the design decisions. I do NOT put design rationale in normative specifications. It is generally considered to be an error in a specification to include that type of material because it leads to ambiguity (c.f. interpretive issues concerning the 2nd amendment resulting from the rationale A well regulated militia...). If someone does want to second guess my design decisions then they should make the effort to actually contact me and discuss them with me, in this particular case no effort was made to do so. My other complaint about the IESG process is that despite the existence of an issues tracker there does not seem to be any facility for telling the authors of the IDs about the status of their documents. I only became aware that there were two IESG DISCUSS holds on my draft many months after the objections were made. It is possible that the mails bounced but I doubt it. Why doesn't every message from the ID editor tell the authors of the status of their document in the issue tracker? My bigger objection here is to the way that the IESG treated the draft. It was submitted in July of 2003, the first time it was discussed was February of 2004. The discussion resulted in a number of editing nits which might well have been reasonable to raise if they had been pointed out in August of 2003 but not six months later. The format of the references should not be a reason to hold up a draft seven months after it is submitted. It was March 2004, almost 8 months after the draft was submitted before any substantive comments were made. By that time the draft is almost completely forgotten and I have to re-read the document to remember what any of the arguments were. It is also way down my list of priorities which are now focused on stopping Internet crime. -Original Message- From: Keith Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:49 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: Joe Touch; John C Klensin; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: text suggested by ADs I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. My proposal for an SRV prefix to be defined for LDAP PKIX repositories is currently held up because of a series of issues that all have to do with the administration of issuing SRV prefixes and the SRV mechanism itself. Phill, I haven't read your proposal or IESGs feedback on your proposal so this isn't a comment on either of those. But if your proposal uses technology X in such a way that it raises or uncovers technical issues about X, I don't see anything wrong (from a process point-of-view) with the IESG examining and attempting to resolve those issues before it lets your document go forward. If X is flawed (or the process of administering X is flawed), and your proposal depends on X, then in some sense that is a flaw in your proposal. This is true regardless of whether X is SRV, RSA, TCP, or whatever. Of course if a flaw were found in X it would make sense to reexamine the status of other protocols using X, but those are separate issues from whether _your_ document should move forward. It might be a poor decision on IESG's part, but that's what appeals are for. Judgment errors are not the same as process flaws, nor are they necessarily evidence of process flaws. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: text suggested by ADs
I don't see anything wrong with that. It's the ADs' job to push back on documents with technical flaws. They're supposed to use their judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information supplied by others. I disagree that the ADs are necessarily that much more technically astute than the rest of us. I would actually feel more comfortable with ADs providing their technical judgment with the rest of us, through the same mechanism: WG or IETF last call. And that technical judgment should be expressed openly, in an archived WG mailing list, where everyone's technical input can be reviewed and everyone who provides technical input can be held accountable. If whoever wants to provide technical input to make a significant change in a specification, be it an AD or a WG chair or ..., can't make a sufficiently convincing case, in an open WG mailing list, that there at least might not be rough consensus for a specification, then I would say the specification doesn't need the change. I tend to agree with Ralph here. I've had very good dealings with ADs when they bring their DISCUSS to the WG mailing list. This helps to resolve the issue; sometimes making the WG realize something which they missed, and sometimes even the AD realizes that the WG has considered their DISCUSS and rejected it for technically sound reasons. Engaging in WG discusses is time consuming, but I think it is consistent with the broad principle of rought consensus and running code. John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: text suggested by ADs
If the process of administering SRV needs to be fixed then the people who see the problem should be responsible for suggesting fixes to it. The relevant question here is whether _your proposal_ depends on some facet of SRV or its administration that isn't working properly at present. If it does, that's a valid reason to delay your proposal until SRV is fixed. If not, then I would say that it's probably not a valid reason. But whether your proposal depends on SRV is a technical judgment that the IESG is empowered to make. If you disagree, that's what appeals are for. Nothing you could reasonably change about the process is likely to change the fact that _somebody_ has to make such judgments and whoever makes them can sometimes be wrong. I keep getting the impression that you are trying to make a personal gripe into a failure of the entire IETF process, and I just don't see it. But if you really do feel it is a process violation, you can appeal on that basis also. Keith p.s. I agree that design rationale rarely belong in normative specifications. we tend to put design rationale in I-Ds in order to convince WGs and IESG to approve them, and often fail to include a note to the RFC Editor that says leave this out of the final publication or to otherwise clearly separate normative text from background material. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
