On Oct 3, 2006, at 4:00 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Brian Carpenter has written draft-carpenter-rfc2026-
critique-02.txt which does exactly that, and he has repeatedly
solicited comments on it. If you think that it would be helpful
to have it published as an informational RFC before under
Eliot,
The goal of draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-02 is
rather different from the goal of the two previous versions,
and it might have been better to change the file name
as well as removing 'critique' from the document title.
The intent of the -02 version is "to document, for information
only
On Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:27:36 AM -0400 John C Klensin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Good. If we disagree, it is only on what a "formal change"
constitutes. I would consider an in-depth summary of what is
wrong with 2026 (at least on any basis other than a personal
informational opinio
--On Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 17:21 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
>> Or, perhaps I'm completely wrong about the sense of the
>> community. But I would suggest and ask that, before any more
>> of these documents are pushed or Last Called, you try to
>> determine
John,
Or, perhaps I'm completely wrong about the sense of the
community. But I would suggest and ask that, before any more of
these documents are pushed or Last Called, you try to determine
the degree to which the community just does not want to deal
with these issues for a while.
As said in
--On Tuesday, 03 October, 2006 13:00 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quite seriously - am I to conclude from the absence of
> comments on that draft that everyone agrees that it
> correctly describes current practice? If so, I'll look for
> an AD to sponsor it.
Brian,
As I s
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Quite seriously - am I to conclude from the absence of comments
> on that draft that everyone agrees that it correctly describes
> current practice? If so, I'll look for an AD to sponsor it.
I've read the document a couple of times, and it appears to
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Quite seriously - am I to conclude from the absence of comments
> on that draft that everyone agrees that it correctly describes
> current practice? If so, I'll look for an AD to sponsor it.
You asked.
Your critique itself has its pluses and minuses.
On the plus side
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 01:00:14PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> >>If that's indeed the case, the first order of business needs to
> >>be to document current practice. I see no chance of making
> >>forward progress on actual changes without first having a
> >>consensus as to what our current
If that's indeed the case, the first order of business needs to
be to document current practice. I see no chance of making
forward progress on actual changes without first having a
consensus as to what our current state is.
Brian Carpenter has written draft-carpenter-rfc2026-critique-02.txt
w
--On Friday, 29 September, 2006 18:14 -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday, September 29, 2006 11:28:56 PM +0200 Eliot Lear
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>...
>> My point here is that the three step process is not used as
>> intended. Existing practice clearly demonst
On Friday, September 29, 2006 11:28:56 PM +0200 Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
My point here is that the three step process is not used as intended.
Existing practice clearly demonstrates that the vast majority of our
work - far more than intended - never reaches beyond PS. This is
r
With respect to documenting current practices, it strikes me that
the IETF has sort of a worked example in the Host Requirements RFCs.
Maybe something maps from technical to administrative specs?
Bob Braden
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://w
John,
Rather than discuss what's hyperbole and what's not, I direct your
attention to http://www.ofcourseimright.com/pages/lear/spy.jpg. One
could argue that things worked about as one would have expected perhaps
through 1996 for draft standard. Beyond that it's clear that things
went off the r
On the issue of whether we have a de facto one-step process, the real
question is not whether subsequent steps are ever invoked, but whether the
subsequent steps actually have any practical impact on the Internet. One
can certainly point to a handful of cases where the subsequent s
Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What it requires is that people who want all their pet changes to go
> into a draft to simply show some discipline and accept that not
> everything will be fixed at once. Current practice is a ONE STEP
> process that is NOT documented. Your and others' ob
Eliot,
Ignoring most of the hyperbole and all of the accusations for
the moment...
--On Friday, 29 September, 2006 08:20 +0200 Eliot Lear
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...
> Current practice is a ONE STEP process that is NOT documented.
>...
That assertion is part of the problem that prompted my
Keith Moore wrote:
> Note that there's an important difference between describing a new
> process in relation to 2026 - but describing all of those changes at
> once - and trying to make one change at a time. I thought you were
> proposing the latter, but I may have misunderstood.
I was not propos
wtf? no, you can't make incremental changes and expect the result to
work better than what we have now. in all probability it will work
worse, much worse. the standards process has to balance various
factors (e.g quality vs. timeliness). if you change one aspect at a
time without changing the
On Fri Sep 29 07:20:34 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
What it requires is that people who want all their pet changes to go
into a draft to simply show some discipline and accept that not
everything will be fixed at once. Current practice is a ONE STEP
process that is NOT documented.
I'm not actually
Keith,
>
> wtf? no, you can't make incremental changes and expect the result to
> work better than what we have now. in all probability it will work
> worse, much worse. the standards process has to balance various
> factors (e.g quality vs. timeliness). if you change one aspect at a
> time wit
But a two-step process with new words and threshold conditions
isn't "current practice"; it is a new idea with all of the
difficulties in getting consensus that Keith identified and all
of the risks of inadvertent change that Sam identified. Trying
to do that as a "current practice, except we ign
I wrote
> Your and others' obstruction brings us
> to a place where nothing moves forward and we are left in an ossified
> state.
This is an overstatement. I don't think John has obstructed the process.
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
htt
John,
> But a two-step process with new words and threshold conditions
> isn't "current practice"; it is a new idea with all of the
> difficulties in getting consensus that Keith identified and all
> of the risks of inadvertent change that Sam identified. Trying
> to do that as a "current practice
John C Klensin wrote:
> Just my opinion.
+1
Deprecating RFC 2026 section by section until nothing is left,
or the rest is simple, is a good strategy. Brian's "dispute"
I-D would eliminate another big part of RFC 2026.
Paul's updates of RFC 1738 together with RFCs 3986 and 2396
are an example h
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> --On Wednesday, 27 September, 2006 23:22 -0400 Sam Hartman
John> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I support the textual descriptions of the changes Eliot made.
>> However I'm concerned that as with any effort to revise
On Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Please find in draft-lear-ietf-rfc2026bis-00.txt a preliminary revision
> of, well, RFC 2026. It contains the following changes:
>
>1. A new two step process for standardization where the second step
> is optional. In other words, you get an STD
I appreciate Eliot announcing his I-D here, and I am hopeful it can
lead to a better understanding of what we're facing here.
OTOH, I find myself in agreement with John Klensin about the difficulty
of the task; and I find myself very much in agreement with Brian Carpenter
that the commitment
Propose your own. I'm not stopping you. And I think you're being
presumptuous about whether or not I'd like it or that we couldn't come
to some agreement.
you and I could probably agree substantially within a few days or weeks.
what I'm worried about is trying to get pairwise agreement or ev
Keith,
>>
>> I could also imagine VERY incremental changes that are agreed to be
>> non-controversial.
>
> this is often how the second-system effect starts, and it nearly
> always works out badly.
I think the intersection of people and potentially agreeable changes is
incredibly small. So do you
--On Thursday, 28 September, 2006 06:29 -0700 Ned Freed
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> While I agree with that, I suggest that we are in something
>> of a conundrum. Right now, 2026 is badly out of date in a
>> number of areas. It reflects procedures and modes that we no
>> longer follow, only
Original Message
Hi Keith,
If that's indeed the case, the first order of business needs to
be to document current practice. I see no chance of making
forward progress on actual changes without first having a
consensus as to what our current state is.
I was just about to re
Hi Keith,
>> If that's indeed the case, the first order of business needs to be to
>> document
>> current practice. I see no chance of making forward progress on
>> actual changes
>> without first having a consensus as to what our current state is.
>
> I was just about to reply to John's message
While I agree with that, I suggest that we are in something of a
conundrum. Right now, 2026 is badly out of date in a number of
areas. It reflects procedures and modes that we no longer
follow, only a fraction of which are addressed by Eliot's draft.
There is general community understanding and
> While I agree with that, I suggest that we are in something of a
> conundrum. Right now, 2026 is badly out of date in a number of
> areas. It reflects procedures and modes that we no longer
> follow, only a fraction of which are addressed by Eliot's draft.
> There is general community understan
--On Wednesday, 27 September, 2006 23:22 -0400 Sam Hartman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I support the textual descriptions of the changes Eliot made.
> However I'm concerned that as with any effort to revise RFC
> 2026, there will llikely be changes in wording that have
> unintended consequences
Eliot Lear wrote:
> we will find another list for this purpose.
Please consider to pick an existing list like pesci or newtrk
or similar, creating new lists for everything is just bad.
> 2026 must be revised and not merely updated
Your points (4) to (7) sound good, but not (1) to (3). I've
n
I support the textual descriptions of the changes Eliot made. However
I'm concerned that as with any effort to revise RFC 2026, there will
llikely be changes in wording that have unintended consequences. I am
not personally convinced that the value of revising RFC 2026 justifies
the risk of probl
Please find in draft-lear-ietf-rfc2026bis-00.txt a preliminary revision
of, well, RFC 2026. It contains the following changes:
1. A new two step process for standardization where the second step
is optional. In other words, you get an STD # at the first step.
This is a bit of com
39 matches
Mail list logo
