- Original Message -
From: Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com
To: Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more
On 6/12/13 9:42 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
I think these messages are useless, not harmful. But perhaps I have
more confidence in the inherent skepticism of your average IETF
participant than Pete does...
FWIW, until I read
Melnikov
alexey.melni...@isode.com javascript:;, Pete Resnick
presn...@qti.qualcomm.com javascript:;, ietf@ietf.org
javascript:;Discussion
ietf@ietf.org javascript:;
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
stpe...@stpeter.imjavascript
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
... and how would we judge IETF consensus on a document that doesn't get
done under a charter (which would in turn have been granted consensus
without
perhaps we should go to the source of the problem and require a phd
dissertation and defense from draft authors.
A couple of years ago I worked with someone who completed his PhD thesis on a
topic faster than it took to publish the RFC on the same topic… that was my
wake-up call for IETF
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Jari Arkko wrote:
But back to the topic. I, for one, would like to see responses on IETF
last calls. It builds my confidence that we know enough about the topic
to make an approval decision. Particularly when the input comes from
people outside the working group. And I'd
On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:43 AM, Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.netmailto:d...@cridland.net wrote:
I suspect the closest we get to getting an idea of IETF consensus is the
interest gauging at the beginning of the process, though interestingly this is
only positive interest - objections to doing the
On 6/11/13 3:45 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason
to send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that
we're voting. Details below.
And a lot of
Dave Cridland wrote:
I strongly feel that positive statements have value, as they allow the
community to gauge the level of review and consensus, and I suspect that
human nature means that we get more reviews if people get to brag about it.
Agreed 100%.
But also consider the likely effect of
On 6/12/2013 2:28 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
In Russ' case I took the message to mean that he reviewed it as an
expert on the technology. It would probably have helped if he said
whether he only reviewed it for correctness or if he was also making
a statement about the technology being needed in his
Pete,
On Jun 10, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the IETF
list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the entire
contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call
Hi Dave,
At 01:43 12-06-2013, Dave Cridland wrote:
I strongly feel that positive statements have
value, as they allow the community to gauge the
level of review and consensus, and I suspect
that human nature means that we get more reviews
if people get to brag about it. I suggest that
if
On 12/06/2013 15:16, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
I strongly feel that positive statements have value, as they allow the
community to gauge the level of review and consensus, and I suspect that
human nature means that we get more reviews if people get to brag about it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/12/13 12:38 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On 12/06/2013 15:16, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
I strongly feel that positive statements have value, as they
allow the community to gauge the level of review and consensus,
After reading some of the criticisms, I wonder if folks who think
they've been disagreeing with me are going to get to the end of this
message and say, Oh, if that's all he's on about, who cares? But *I*
of course think there is an important issue in here. Anyway, back into
the breach. David's
On 6/12/13 10:33 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Please describe the context of your email. Are you speaking for the IESG,
yourself as an AD, or an individual?
Oh, crap. And given that I'm usually the one giving people a hard time
about *this* issue, I feel especially bad about not being clearer.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/12/13 12:44 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 6/12/13 12:38 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
On 12/06/2013 15:16, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Dave Cridland wrote:
I strongly feel that positive statements have value, as they
allow the
On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
I think these messages are useless, not harmful. But perhaps I have
more confidence in the inherent skepticism of your average IETF
participant than Pete does...
FWIW, until I read Pete's document on consensus, I thought
'scuse front posting, but I'm going to outrageously summarise
Pete's point as I want substance in all Last Call comments, or
alternatively I will ignore +1 just as I will ignore -1.
That isn't unreasonable, but personally I would interpret I've
read it and I think it's good work as substantive,
On 6/12/13 3:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
'scuse front posting, but I'm going to outrageously summarise
Pete's point as I want substance in all Last Call comments, or
alternatively I will ignore +1 just as I will ignore -1.
Maybe not outrageous, but certainly wrong because...
/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Pete Resnick
[presn...@qti.qualcomm.com]
Sent: 12 June 2013 20:17
To: Bob Hinden
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 6/12/13 10:33 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Please describe the context of your
:17
To: Bob Hinden
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On 6/12/13 10:33 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Please describe the context of your email. Are you speaking for the IESG,
yourself as an AD, or an individual?
Oh, crap. And given that I'm usually the one giving
On 6/12/13 5:10 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 06/12/2013 10:56 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
Are the IESG people who disagree with you speaking for the IESG, or for
themselves?
That's really not clear already? In any case, I was disagreeing
with Pete as an individual since he was
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Pete Resnick wrote:
Much as I would like what Stephen says to be true, I think Lloyd's probably
right: People give more weight to opinions coming from people with dots on
their name badges.
One has to be able to see the dots for it to possibly matter. Out here at
the
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote:
I think these messages are useless, not harmful. But perhaps I have
more confidence in the inherent skepticism of your average IETF
participant than Pete does...
FWIW, until I
I'm seeing two things here.
One is that you need some context of *why* something is supported, as per your
examples.
The other is that you need a level of detail that's more than one line.
However, I'd note that *all* of those examples are (in my MUA) one line each.
So, can you clarify?
so now i am expected to do a write-up of why i show simple support of a
document i have read? may i use carbon paper for the triplicate, or
will a copier suffice? surely we can find a way to waste more time and
effort.
randy
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:51 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
so now i am expected to do a write-up of why i show simple support of a
document i have read? may i use carbon paper for the triplicate, or
will a copier suffice? surely we can find a way to waste more time and
effort.
If you say
To: Mark Nottingham
Cc: Pete Resnick; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments
so now i am expected to do a write-up of why i show simple support of a
document i have read? may i use carbon paper for the triplicate, or
will a copier suffice? surely we can find a way to waste more time
Of Stephen
Farrell [stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie]
Sent: 11 June 2013 01:36
To: Pete Resnick
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments
Hi Pete,
I think you err when you say this:
A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an
IESG member trying to determine
A comment is a comment (important for discussing) which I want to see,
no matter if content-free or not, the origin requester (IETF Last
Call/WGLC) of such comments SHOULD specify which type of comment they
want if necessary. As long as it is a comment-on-discuss-lists any can
ask questions to the
On Jun 11, 2013, at 13:17, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote:
We have to know, not that you have read the document, but that you have
-understood- it.
Process experiment:
end all Internet-Drafts with a multiple-choice test.
Grüße, Carsten
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote:
A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an IESG
member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free.
I think this is, in part, due to the question asked.
The IETF's Last Call
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments Date: Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at
11:46:29PM + Quoting Ted Lemon (ted.le...@nominum.com):
Determining consensus in an IETF last call is a bit more complicated
than that. It's not a working group last call. If someone objects to
publication during
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at
01:52:46PM +0200 Quoting Måns Nilsson (mansa...@besserwisser.org):
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those
On 6/11/2013 6:36 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
I think this is, in part, due to the question asked.
The IETF's Last Call announcement presumes much on the part of those
reading it. You're aiming to solicit something that's not asked for.
Compare and contrast with the XSF's Last Call announcements,
On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone?
You
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
If we want the statements of support to be meaningful, they need to have
the creator of the statement do some real work -- more than mechanically
checking boxes -- demonstrating the 'understanding' that Lloyd suggests.
On 6/11/2013 5:25 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
We want understanding, of course, but I think requiring Russ to
demonstrate that by writing a paragraph or six on the finer points of
the proposal would be daft.
That's the problem with special-case exceptions, such as requiring less
work by an
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 6/11/2013 5:25 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
We want understanding, of course, but I think requiring Russ to
demonstrate that by writing a paragraph or six on the finer points of
the proposal would be daft.
That's the
On 6/11/13 8:12 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those objections again be raised in IETF
Re-formulating the LC text sounds like an excellent idea, to call for
more substantive comments.
perhaps we should go to the source of the problem and require a phd
dissertation and defense from draft authors.
how much process chaos can we create?
randy
On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:41 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
how much process chaos can we create?
Don't ask questions you don't want answered! :)
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
Re-formulating the LC text sounds like an excellent idea, to call for
more substantive comments.
perhaps we should go to the source of the problem and require a phd
dissertation and defense from draft authors.
how much
2013 12:36
To: Pete Resnick
Cc: ietf@ietf.org Discussion
Subject: Re: Content-free Last Call comments
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Pete Resnick
presn...@qti.qualcomm.commailto:presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an IESG
member
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone?
If that were ever to happen, I don't see why not.
In the recent cases I've seen
On 06/11/2013 10:43 AM, John Levine wrote:
So, if wg discussion has been ordered mute by the wg chairs because
some wg participants believe the group-think consensus is good enough,
can those objections again be raised in IETF LC or are they set in stone?
If that were ever to happen, I don't
On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume working groups
are infallible, or more importantly not subject to the groupthink phenomenon.
Otherwise what is IETF LC for?
The IETF last call is for catching
On 6/11/13 9:52 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume working
groups are infallible, or more importantly not subject to the groupthink
phenomenon. Otherwise what is IETF LC for?
Right. We've had some issues with document quality, and I
can think
On 6/11/13 10:02 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
The IETF last call is for catching things the working group missed,
not for rehashing arguments that were beaten to death in the working
group.
I am not sure I fully understand why we're having this conversation,
or rather why this aspect of the broader
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to
send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that we're
voting. Details below.
Specifically on Stephen's message:
On 6/10/13 7:36 PM,
Pete,
On 12/06/2013 07:45, Pete Resnick wrote:
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to
send one line of support, and it only encourages the view that we're
voting. Details below.
Just to
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote:
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath.
Well, this thread is surely evidence that you don't always get what you
want.
But more
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.netmailto:d...@cridland.net wrote:
But more seriously, what are you expecting Russ to do? What did you want him to
write?
If your answer is Nothing, then how do you read IETF consensus for a document
that gets no response in its Last
On 6/11/13 3:05 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Pete,
On 12/06/2013 07:45, Pete Resnick wrote:
It's interesting to see that people are interpreting me to mean I want
more text. I don't. I want less. Save your breath. There is no reason to
send one line of support, and it only encourages the
On 06/11/2013 11:02 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
wrote:
The flip side of that argument is that we don't want to assume
working groups are infallible, or more importantly not subject to
the groupthink phenomenon. Otherwise what is IETF LC for?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On Jun 11, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
But more seriously, what are you expecting Russ to do? What did you want
him to write?
If your answer is Nothing, then how do you read IETF
On 6/11/2013 1:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
As I understand it cross-disciplinary review is also an important
function of the IETF LC.
This gets at the reality that the current IETF uses processing phases
rather more robustly than we used to. It certainly used to be that IETF
LC was
On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote:
That in turn presumes we are defaulting to publication in all cases, and that
in turn seems problematic to me, because his answers become, in order:
a) Russ, and by extension anyone who supports the document's publication for
On 10/06/13 21:37, Pete Resnick wrote:
Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the
IETF list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the
entire contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call request:
On 6/10/13 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
It is presumed that some degree of consensus to do the work of a working
group existed when that working group was chartered; otherwise it would not
have been chartered. When the working group reaches consensus to
On Jun 11, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Dave Cridland
d...@cridland.netmailto:d...@cridland.net wrote:
... and how would we judge IETF consensus on a document that doesn't get done
under a charter (which would in turn have been granted consensus without any
IETF comments?)
I would expect that you'd start
Right. We've had some issues with document quality, and I
can think of several documents that sailed through WG last
call and should not have.
there was a doc with which i had a small, but non trivial, issue. the
author and the wg did not think it worthwhile. i did not want to argue
better than saying I have not read the document but I support publication
I do not see all that much help in having someone list reasons they support
publication unless
there is some particularly wonderful feature or the prose is particularly clear
the reverse is not the case, I think there is
On 6/10/13 2:37 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
I think we should stop with these one-line statements of support.
+1 ;-)
/psa
On 6/10/2013 4:52 PM, Bradner, Scott wrote:
etter than saying I have not read the document but I support publication
I do not see all that much help in having someone list reasons they support
publication unless
there is some particularly wonderful feature or the prose is particularly clear
On Jun 10, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Bradner, Scott s...@harvard.edu wrote:
I do not see all that much help in having someone list reasons they support
publication unless
there is some particularly wonderful feature or the prose is particularly
clear
I don't really see any point in expressing
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Bradner, Scott s...@harvard.edu wrote:
I do not see all that much help in having someone list reasons they support
publication unless
there is some particularly wonderful feature or the prose is particularly
clear
On Jun 10, 2013, at 6:19 PM, David Morris d...@xpasc.com wrote:
I don't think there is another way to indicate you've reviewed a draft and
found no issues. Surely rough concensus must include confidence that
that silence means more than ignorance and I'm not aware of any mechanism
to evaluate
Hi Pete,
At 13:37 10-06-2013, Pete Resnick wrote:
A month ago, we had another very senior member of the community post
just such a message (in that case directly to the IESG) in response
to a different Last Call. I took that senior member of the community
to task for it. But apparently Russ
On Jun 10, 2013, at 7:21 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
I agree that one-line statements are not of much use. It's more tedious to
write a statement to support a proposal than an objection to it. Non-silent
Last Calls usually draw objections. It's going to be difficult to balance
that
In message 8d23d4052abe7a4490e77b1a012b6307751cf...@mbx-01.win.nominum.com, T
ed Lemon writes:
On Jun 10, 2013, at 7:21 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
I agree that one-line statements are not of much use. It's more tedious =
to write a statement to support a proposal than an objection to
Hi Pete,
I think you err when you say this:
A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an
IESG member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free.
In fact, you do know Russ. If you did not, then the above would be
far closer to correct. But in reality you do know
On Jun 10, 2013, at 8:31 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Which breaks some of the reasons why we do IETF last calls. WGs do get too
focused on a problem and do fail to do a balance response to problems.
If enough IETF last call people agree that the working group made a mistake,
that
74 matches
Mail list logo
