...@ariadne.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Only that you know enough people so that you could push a new technology even
without attending, although you would need to collaborate with some people who
do go. But pushing a new
: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Only that you know enough people so that you could push a new technology even
without attending, although you would need to collaborate with some people
who do go. But pushing a new technology requires team building anyway
On 4/19/2013 2:02 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Only that you know enough people so that you could push a new technology even
without attending,
IETF work officially happens on IETF lists, not at in-person meetings.
As per the Tao of the IETF: Any decision made at a face-to-face meeting
must also
@ietf.org
Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Looking in Jari's statistics site, you have three RFCs. One of those has
several co-authors that I recognize as current goers. You also have a current
draft with several co-authors, but I have no idea
2013 15:18
To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: wor...@ariadne.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Looking in Jari's statistics site, you have three RFCs. One of those has
several co-authors that I recognize as current
: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
From: Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current
:38
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
From: Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
(http
@ietf.org
Subject: Re: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
Not entirely true.
It is true that getting management positions (chairs, AD, NomCom) requires
meeting attendance. But a non-attender can get recognition for quality
technical points, and can even
...@ariadne.com; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: The Purpose of WG participants Review (was Re: Purpose of IESG
Review)
I've written RFCs without attending meetings; easy to do if the work is a
aligned with a workgroup.
That's fine if you're happy to be a technical resource with skills to be drawn
upon
On Apr 18, 2013, at 5:02 AM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com wrote:
but you can become prominent in the sense that people might say this
document hasn't had enough review. Let's ask so-and-so to read it
Yes, it's worth noting that working group chairs are often desperate for people
about whom
From: Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77479.html), but
in the current context it bears repeating:
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager
about the manager's decisions or performance?
It is IMO the *obligation* of a professional to call his manager on
wrong decisions or performance.
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
On Apr 16, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote:
I've advocated the equivalent of the following opinion before
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg77479.html), but
in the current context it bears repeating: Here in the IETF we accept
that low-status
] On Behalf Of t.p.
[daedu...@btconnect.com]
Sent: 12 April 2013 21:52
To: Arturo Servin; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Purpose of IESG Review
- Original Message -
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM
Not answering any particular
Responding to various people in one e-mail.
To summarise, we have procedures that say what kinds of Discusses are
appropriate, and personal engineering preferences are not. Legitimate issues
should be raised, however, and in the case of most big issues, the right
approach would be to send a
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
In my opinion, some individual ADs seem to, from their behavior, feel that
they have not done their jobs unless they have raised a discuss. The one
that took the cake for me personally was a discuss raised by a
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about the
manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can question
managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on
On Apr 12, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Andy Bierman a...@yumaworks.com wrote:
During IESG review, the ADs from other areas should
restrict their comments to issues related to their area.
The final review should avoid changes made
which are feature redesigns or feature enhancements,
and limit changes
On 15/04/2013 15:23, Ted Lemon wrote:
...
So in practice, although I feel great sympathy for this position, I think
it's mistaken. I want the other ADs to comment on anything that they notice
that looks like a problem.
There's an important class of problem that can only be found by
On Apr 15, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 15/04/2013 15:23, Ted Lemon wrote:
...
So in practice, although I feel great sympathy for this position, I think
it's mistaken. I want the other ADs to comment on anything that they
notice that looks
On 4/15/2013 7:23 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
So it's hard to see the harm in [late non-area input by the IESG],
It gives the IESG an exemption to participating in WG and IESG last call
processes, which then frustrates the rest of the community that does not
have this opportunity.
It says that
On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
It gives the IESG an exemption to participating in WG and IESG last call
processes, which then frustrates the rest of the community that does not have
this opportunity.
You could equally say that the IETF last call frustrates the
On 15/04/13 15:45, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 15/04/2013 15:23, Ted Lemon wrote:
...
So in practice, although I feel great sympathy for this position, I think it's
mistaken. I want the other ADs to comment on anything that they notice that
looks like a problem.
There's an important class
Ted == Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com writes:
Ted You could equally say that the IETF last call frustrates the WG
Ted process, since a document can fail IETF last call, and this can
Ted be extremely frustrating for working groups. Witness the
Ted fiasco in the MIF working
On Apr 15, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Apr 15, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
It gives the IESG an exemption to participating in WG and IESG last call
processes, which then frustrates the rest of the community that does not
have this
On Apr 15, 2013, at 12:23 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Maybe we should have an IETF first call (for objections), rather than
last call.
I think that would look a lot like a DoS attack on the IETF, but it would be
nice if there were a way to make it work.
On 04/15/2013 05:26 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
We can continue to appoint groups with additional rounds of review, but IMO,
they are scoped (and the IESG review guidance appears to back up that point).
I think Joe is correct there. Another data point is that we
asked secdir (who currently have an
Hi Murray,
I don't want me, you or anyother volunteer to leave, but also don't
want IESG memebrs to leave. I don't disagree with the concept of
discussing with managers or in the IETF to discuss with IESG (against
indirect methods of doing that). Please don't ignore that the first
message and all
Hi Arturo, and all,
(sorry that this message is long but I want to make this my last post
on the subject)
The reason of this message/subject is that I want to avoid some group
working together to achieve their purpose (while they may be fogetting
the IETF purpose) within a WG. If I am a company
, IMO.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
C Klensin
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:19 PM
To: Abdussalam Baryun; ietf
Subject: Re: Purpose of IESG Review
--On Friday, April 12, 2013 20:24 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
?
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.p.
[daedu...@btconnect.com]
Sent: 12 April 2013 21:52
To: Arturo Servin; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Purpose of IESG Review
On 12/04/2013 14:17, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so
AB
Have you considered that the key thing to remember in the
IETF is that:
Foo is broken because of (carefully reasoned) Bar always trumps
Foo is OK because of who I am ... and of course vise versa.
Thus in the IETF influence is a function of the ability to
carefully construct a well reasoned
--On Friday, April 12, 2013 23:50 + Pat Thaler
ptha...@broadcom.com wrote:
+1 on for John's response.
I will argue with my manager if I think they are wrong and
I've gotten positive results from giving managers feedback on
their performance. Of course, disagreeing with management
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about the
manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can question
managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on any
Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
Also, in my opinion, IESG review that raises a certain number of issues
should not result in the document sitting in the IESG's queue for a
few months while the authors go back and forth with the AD or the
GEN-ART reviewer pounding the document into
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a purpose.
IMHO, if the IESG members sticks to their own criteria at
Reply to below message
The subject SHOULD be: Evaluating Review Process Performance
I prefer the Subject is: Evaluating WG input, the WG review process,
and the WG output, NOT IESG review.
Hi Joe,
My
On 4/12/2013 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a purpose.
Brian,
Of course it serves a
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a
On 12/04/2013 14:17, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review,
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Seeing randomly selected drafts as a Gen-ART reviewer, I can
say that serious defects quite often survive WG review and
sometimes survive IETF Last Call review, so the final review
by the IESG does serve a purpose.
I'm currently seeing a document with some serious
I have no interest in or knowledge of the technical details,
but there is a pretty complicated DISCUSS against this draft,
which doesn't look like rubber-stamping to me:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis/ballot/
I assume you've already let the IESG know about the defects
On Apr 12, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Martin Rex m...@sap.com wrote:
I'm currently seeing a document with some serious defects in
IETF Last Call (rfc2560bis) and an apparent desire to have
it Rubberstamped by the IESG (recycling at Proposed Standard).
FWIW, I raised the same question during IESG
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I have no interest in or knowledge of the technical details,
but there is a pretty complicated DISCUSS against this draft,
which doesn't look like rubber-stamping to me:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pkix-rfc2560bis/ballot/
I assume you've already let
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager about the
manager's decisions or performance? Only Owners/shareholders can question
managers and staff. IMO, the meeting/list discussions on any issue
without an I-D written is the staff talking/working.
If you write an I-D and to
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was followed
and the document reached consensus in the WG and in the IETF LC and it
was successfully reviewed by the Gen-ART. If it wasn't then this
particular process
On 4/12/2013 11:28 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and
change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something wrong
in our process because that means that the document had a serious
problem and we didn't spot it in the
I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with review
is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG document, that
may not be bad, but I think having only one review or comment (excluding
authors) within a WGLC is wrong in a WG review process. I think WG chair
can
On 4/12/13 4:32 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 4/12/2013 11:28 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
But if a single individual of the IESG can technically challenge and
change the work of a whole WG and the IETF, then we have something wrong
in our process because that means that the document had a
On 4/12/13 4:58 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
I just change the subject because I still beleive the problem with
review is in the WG not IESG. Some WGs have few reviews on each WG
document, that may not be bad, but I think having only one review or
comment (excluding authors) within a WGLC is
- Original Message -
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was
followed
and the document reached consensus in the
On 4/12/13 5:52 PM, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment.
The IESG should be there to attest that the IETF procedure was
followed
and
--On Friday, April 12, 2013 20:24 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
How can a memebr of staff in a company argue with the manager
about the manager's decisions or performance?
In most successful companies, yes.
Only
Owners/shareholders can question managers and
...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John C
Klensin
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:19 PM
To: Abdussalam Baryun; ietf
Subject: Re: Purpose of IESG Review
--On Friday, April 12, 2013 20:24 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
How can a memebr of staff
.
[daedu...@btconnect.com]
Sent: 12 April 2013 21:52
To: Arturo Servin; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Purpose of IESG Review
- Original Message -
From: Arturo Servin arturo.ser...@gmail.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:28 PM
Not answering any particular post. Just a comment
Hi, all,
As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review,
I've noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its
documented and original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026):
The IESG shall determine whether or not a specification submitted to
it
On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review, I've
noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its documented
and original intent (BCP 9, currently RFC 2026):
The IESG shall determine
/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
[paul.hoff...@vpnc.org]
Sent: 11 April 2013 19:55
To: Joe Touch
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Purpose of IESG Review
On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote
: 11 April 2013 19:55
To: Joe Touch
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Purpose of IESG Review
On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review, I've
noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO
l.w...@surrey.ac.uk l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
+1 to Joe's comment.
Example: the existence of the extensibility bit in multipath tcp,
which i understand came out of a review by the iesg member responsible
for security.
I assume you're talking RFC 6824. I recommend reading the Narrative
@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Purpose of IESG Review
Hi Ian,
Examples are useful because they give the IESG something to chew on. If you
don't call us when we do bad stuff we might never know.
Examples can be dangerous because we can rat-hole into the specific rather
than
the general, but i would
On 4/11/2013 11:55 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
As an author who has had (and has) multiple documents in IESG review, I've
noticed an increasing trend of this step to go beyond (IMO) its documented and
original intent (BCP 9,
In my opinion, some individual ADs seem to, from their behavior, feel that they
have not done their jobs unless they have raised a discuss. The one that took
the cake for me personally was a discuss raised by a particular AD (who shall
remain nameless) that in essence wondered what he should
64 matches
Mail list logo
