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
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.
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
(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
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
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
: 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
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
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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 -
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,
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
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
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.
--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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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:
*
* 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
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:
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
* 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
:[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
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:
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
-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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
-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
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
-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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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...
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
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
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
91 matches
Mail list logo
