Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 20:49 -0700, SM wrote: ... At 19:06 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote: any one other than themselves. If support by IETF members at-large is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a much better idea much less deceptive. RFCs, for example RFC 1984, have been used for such statements. Sorry, I don't get your point. The referenced RFC says The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee architecture and standards for the Internet, are concerned by the need for increased protection of international commercial transactions on the Internet, and by the need to offer all Internet users an adequate degree of privacy. Presumably, the IAB IESG came to this concern through consensus and the document expresses the consensus (along with the rather typical sense of exaggerated self-importance ;-)) of those bodies. It pointedly does not claim to represent the opinion of the entire IETF, but neither does the document under discussion (unless the royal usage of we is intended) and that's how it should be. Regards, -sm attachment: face-wink.png
Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update-05.txt (Updated Specification of the IPv4 ID Field) to Proposed Standard
Joe Touch wrote: Hi, RFC2765 specifies that translators can merely copy the low-order bits of the field. Yes, but this is not compatible with RFC791. Then, which should we revice? RFC791, RFC2765 or both? 2765. Is it a consensus of IETF? Note that it also imply revising RFC2460, because rfc2765 specifies a way of ID mapping, where as rfc2460 specifies 32bit-16bit mapping will be performed by translators. Note also that there already are working implementations of rfc2460 and rfc2765. There is no useful way to revise 791 to make the text in 2765 correct. Revising rfc791 not requiring a very strong uniqueness is useful reflecting current practice better than your draft, even though your draft claims closely reflect current practice. Moreover, I can see no useful way to revise rfc2765. Do you have any suggestion? Without such a decision, there is no point to publish something based on RFC791 and is not compatible with RFC2765. Sure there is - when IPv6 is not involved. But, your draft involves IPv6 and, for example, the following statement in your draft: IPv6, even at typical MTUs, is capable of 18.7 Tbps with fragmentation between two IP endpoints as an aggregate across all protocols, is not compatible with rfc2460 and rfc2765. An IPv6 source might never send packets larger than IPv4 can natively handle - i.e., it could send packets 576 bytes or smaller. In that case, the IPv6 source would never get an ICMP too big because they're not as far as IPv4 is concerned. In that case, the IPv6 source would never insert the Fragmentation Header. I'm afraid minimum MTU of IPv4 is 68, not 576 bytes. Anyway, IPv6 node having no idea on PMTU will send a lot of exactly 1280 byte long packets, because it will make TCP most efficient. That is the fundamental flaw in these IPv6 RFCs, but it is behavior that is out of scope for an IPv4 source. My doc focuses on the behavior of IPv4 sources. While I think IPv6 RFCs have many fundamental flaws, a problem is that there are people in IETF insisting not to admit them flaws. Do you think you can make them admit a flaw? That is the problem. That is, if you insist on RFC791 as is, not enough is specified on how to generate IPv6 ID. Yes, but that does not affect an IPv4 source; it remains a problem, but out of scope for this doc. It is out of scope, if only rfc791 is not revised. Thus, there can be only one way (the one in RFC2765) to map IPv6 ID to IPv4 ID Yes, this is a nice goal, but it would have required IPv6 hosts insert 16-bit IDs into *every* packet and make them just as unique as IPv4 does. No, not *every* packet. But, as you wrote: Further, the source might already be inserting the fragmentation header (e.g., on a 2KB packet). every such packet is required to have a unique 32bit ID which must also be unique as a 16bit ID after translation. Then, as fixing RFC2460 is politically impossible, we must abandone IPv6 and live with IPv4 forever. I didn't say we couldn't fix - or at least try to fix - this situation. But it remains out of scope for this doc. If only you can convince people we should fix rfc2460, not rfc791. but, the specification of the similar field in IPv6 is, in your opinion, incomplete, let's finish it first, IPv6 is fine when it talks to IPv6 only. The goal is to make IPv4 work in a similar way. You are saying dual stack is clean and the way to go and all the other IPv6 deployment scenarios should be ignored. it doesn't make it completely correct, though - there remain problems that have nothing to do with the changes in this doc that need to be addressed separately. The question is whether you can have a consensus that rfc2460 is not completely correct or not. For another example, Finally, the IPv6 ID field is 32 bits, and required unique per source/destination address pair for IPv6, is, in your opinion, violation of RFC791. No; the violation occurs only when the lower 16 bits are masked off and used by themselves by on-path translators. That has nothing to do with the quoted text above. The problem is that, if rfc2460 is not completely correct, above text in your draft should be something based not on the current rfc2460 but on completely correctly revised rfc2460, such as IPv6 ID field is required unique after translated into 16 bit IPv4 ID. But neither of the above requires that IPv6 IDs must be easily translatable into valid IPv4 addresses using the existing mechanism. IPv4 addresses? What do you mean? Masataka Ohta
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Hi Glen, At 23:13 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote: Sorry, I don't get your point. The referenced RFC says It was the Spring of 1995. The place was known as Danvers. That meeting is remembered because of the Danvers Doctrine. Presumably, the IAB IESG came to this concern through consensus and the document expresses the consensus (along with the rather typical sense of exaggerated self- Yes. importance ;-) ) of those bodies. It pointedly does not claim to represent the opinion of the entire IETF, but neither does the document under discussion (unless the royal usage of we is intended) and that's how it should be. Over the years the IAB and IETF have expressed a joint opinion on an issue through a RFC.That RFC is one of the significant ones as it dealt with the question of export grade security which was on the political agenda of the day. Nowadays the IETF uses BCPs to express IETF Consensus. Regards, -sm attachment: 3759cb5c.jpg
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
I support that IETF and IAB chairs sign this document. Bert - Original Message - From: IETF Chair ch...@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce ietf-annou...@ietf.org Cc: IAB i...@iab.org; IETF ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:19 PM Subject: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf An earlier version was discussed in plenary, and the IAB Chair called for comments on the IETF mail list. This version includes changes that address those comments. Th IETF 84 Administrative plenary minutes have been posted, so that discussion can be reviewed if desired. The minutes are here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary On 8 August 2012, the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors approved this version of the document. The approval process is underway at the W3C as well. The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the i...@iab.org and the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-24. Thank you, Russ Housley IETF Chair
Re: Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
+1 AB On Aug 10, 2012, at 8:19 AM, IETF Chair wrote: The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf An earlier version was discussed in plenary, and the IAB Chair called for comments on the IETF mail list. This version includes changes that address those comments. Th IETF 84 Administrative plenary minutes have been posted, so that discussion can be reviewed if desired. The minutes are here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary On 8 August 2012, the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors approved this version of the document. The approval process is underway at the W3C as well. The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the i...@iab.org and the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-24. Thank you, Russ Housley IETF Chair
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's not being used. Something quite different is being used. I'm not so sure. It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug. He asked for comments. - The IETF Chair announced updated text on 4 Aug, based on comments received. - The IETF Chair made a last call on 10 Aug, running through 24 Aug, noting that three organizations are approving this text (and that one has already). He asked for objections. - A discussion (this) ensued, which has resulted in a great deal of support for the signing, no objections to the document, and two objections on process grounds. I presume that the IETF Chair will evaluate rough consensus on or after 24 Aug. As I see it now, consensus appears to be strongly in favour of their signing it, with a valid process objection that has to be addressed. By way of addressing that, this IETF participant thinks that our consensus process has essentially been followed. Text was publicly posted, comments were incorporated, a last call was issued, and responses are being considered. In the end, we seem likely to have IETF consensus that the IAB Chair and the IETF Chair sign the document. The parts that are not entirely as usual are (1) that the text was publicly posted, but not in an Internet Draft, and (2) that the community's ability to tweak the text has been limited. That said, both of those aspects are part of the public last call, and they have gotten very limited objection. Can you tell us where the above process fails in representing the rough consensus of the IETF community, with respect to how we normally express such consensus? Can you tell us how what we're doing here is quite different to our usual process (that is, quite different, as opposed to very slightly different, with the difference having been explained and due to the requirements of external interactions)? Barry
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 8/12/2012 8:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug. Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls? When did the community approve that change in process? He asked for comments. No he didn't: Please send strong objections... This asserts a forceful bias against general comments and criticisms by establishing a very high threshhold for relevance. While no, no one is prevented from other kinds of postings, the bias is nonetheless established. - A discussion (this) ensued, which has resulted in a great deal of support for the signing, no objections to the document, and two objections on process grounds. Note that he didn't ask for support, although explicit support statements are exactly what is required for IETF consensus calls, absent a history to justify the kind of default yes assumption made in the announcement. We don't have any such documented history for this effort. Would any of us guess that the community would support the document? Sure. But guessing isn't the point. That folks have chosen to ignore the stricture specified in the announcement and to post public support shows how deeply ingrained our model is. And, yeah, enough such postings overwhelm problems with the last call wording... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug. Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls? 1 Aug to 24 Aug strikes me as nearly four weeks, not two. If you want to propose that Russ add four more days, I'm sure your suggestion would be considered. You don't appear to be suggesting anything constructive, though. He asked for comments. No he didn't: He, being the IAB Chair on 1 Aug, as I said in my message, did: The IAB, IESG, IEEE-SA and W3C have been developing an “Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm”. Comments may be sent to i...@iab.org. I any case, I recommend that you make specific, constructive suggestions about what we *should* do at this point. Vague criticism that we're not doing it right are much less helpful, don't you think? Barry
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 8/12/2012 9:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug. Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls? 1 Aug to 24 Aug strikes me as nearly four weeks, not two. If you want to propose that Russ add four more days, I'm sure your suggestion would be considered. You don't appear to be suggesting anything constructive, though. 1. You think 3 weeks is nearly 4? 2. The Last Call was issued on 10 August, not 1 August. Again, what's happening here is a form of 'let's ignore IETF process because this is such a wonderful cause'. It is, indeed, a wonderful cause, but I don't recall our establishing rules that are to be applied only when we feel like it, or in varied manner that our management decides is sufficient. He asked for comments. No he didn't: He, being the IAB Chair on 1 Aug, as I said in my message, did: The IAB, IESG, IEEE-SA and W3C have been developing an “Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm”. Comments may be sent to i...@iab.org. It's always a bit disconcerting to see an AD misinterpret process details this way, especially when it requires changing the reference to something that wasn't a Last Call. I any case, I recommend that you make specific, constructive suggestions about what we *should* do at this point. Vague criticism that we're not doing it right are much less helpful, don't you think? sigh. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Metadiscussion [Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm]
Dave, On 12/08/2012 17:14, Dave Crocker wrote: ... Again, what's happening here is a form of 'let's ignore IETF process because this is such a wonderful cause'. It is, indeed, a wonderful cause, but I don't recall our establishing rules that are to be applied only when we feel like it, or in varied manner that our management decides is sufficient. Quite true. However, RFC 2026 lays down rules for standards track documents, and extends them to IETF process documents by stating that they are published as BCPs. It doesn't lay down rules for actions such as signing a declaration of common general policy with other SDOs*. In my opinion, it is completely appropriate for the IAB, IESG and the IETF Chair to adopt an abbreviated or adapted procedure for such documents. * In fact, this type of thing seems to be in the IAB's remit, BCP 39, section 2, clause (f) External Liaison: ...other technical and organizational issues relevant to the world-wide Internet. Regards Brian
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Dave If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than taking steps to avoid Internet governance being transferred by government decree to a secretive agency of the UN that runs by government majority. Is that a correct assessments of your priorities? Stewart
Modern Global Standards Paradigm
For your information the IUSG (interested in the Intelligent Use of the whole digital ecosystem) has just released the following statement which reflect a friendly but non-IETF evaluation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm document proposed by the IETF and IAB Chairs to the endorsement of other SDOs and proposes a way to best build on it. Portzamparc This matter is a matter of trust in the IETF (as well as in the whole US organized I* structural set: ICANN, IANA, GAC) and how to restore/maintain confidence. As IUsers (Members of the IUse community interested in an intelligent use of the whole digital ecosystem), FLOSS developers, end-users, governments, and operators, we are accustomed to trusting the ITU in its plug to plug basic interconnection services area. We are not accustomed yet to trusting the “I*” structural set in its end to end value-added interoperations service area. This is for the very reasons that the IAB started to pertinently document but with no effective result in RFC 3869. This is because the IETF did not want to participate in the WSIS consensus. This is because the IETF considered us in the way that they think the ITU considers them. This is due to our patient and friendly (sometimes tough) experience of the ICANN, ISOC, IETF, IANA, and GAC attitude and culture. We want this to be corrected, the IETF to relax, and everyone to obtain clearer documentation of the UDP/TCP/SCTP strata, to ensure that the Internet technology and its RD are not under direct or indirect commercial influence and its governance is not solely conducted by the USG. This is also the case because some of us and commercial interests as well are engaged in exploring, testing, and documenting, in coordination with the IETF, the fringe to fringe extended services “Internet+” area, and its non-ITU/IETF documented layers. We need credibility, stability, and homogeneity and simple interfaces in the Internet area as all of us currently have from the ITU. Please understand that in this Internet+ endeavor we do not want to obey the ITU and IETF more than you want to obey the ITU and our emerging IUTF. However, we need non blocking clarity, transparency, and predictability. Our suggestion is, instead of unilaterally promoting a standardization BCP in pure American IETF language along a non IETF documented process, to propose an RFC 3869bis open working group with people from all the concerned SDOs, the ITU to begin with, in order to reflect a standardization world ethitechnical (ethic of technical standardization) consensus on the way, not to best sign clients or deliver to subscribers, but to intelligently serve us, the users. To contribute to this effort, we have engaged ourselves in a reflection on the matter at http://iutf.org/wiki/Modern_Global_Standards_Paradigm. We will see how it develops. Should a WG/RFC3869Bis be created, IUSG would certainly participate. (http://iusg.org/wiki/20120813_-_Statement_proposing_an_open_IETF/WG/RFC3869bis):
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 12, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than taking steps to avoid Internet governance being transferred by government decree to a secretive agency of the UN that runs by government majority. Is that a correct assessments of your priorities? Another possibility is that Dave simply wanted to start yet another process discussion, and he thought this was the appropriate time and thread for it. A corollary to Hanlon's razor is never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by bureaucracy. --Paul Hoffman, whose support for the proposal remains positive
Re: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
For those utterly mystified by the recent message under the above subject header, let me note that my spam folder earlier today included a rather incomprehensible message from JFC Morfin. I'm about to add jean-michel bernier de portzamparc to my spam filters too, of course. Alternatively, you could waste your time trying to make sense of those messages. Good luck with that. Regards Brian
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm
[BA] The reply below represents my personal opinion. Dave Crocker said: It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug. Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls? When did the community approve that change in process? [BA] Thanks for raising this issue, Dave. A document that describes the processes utilized by Modern SDOs should probably take extra care to follow the applicable process. Below find my best guess as to what that is. At one point the suggestion was to publish the statement as an RFC; had this been done, the procedures to be followed would have been governed by the procedures for publication on the selected stream. For example, if the document were to have been published as an Informational RFC within the IAB stream, then RFC 4845 would apply. Section 3 states: 5. The chair of the IAB issues an IETF-wide Call for Comment on the IETF Announce mailing list. The comment period is normally no shorter than four weeks. However, AFAIK this document is not being considered for publication as an RFC (at least within the IAB stream), so RFC 4845 does not apply. He asked for comments. No he didn't: Please send strong objections... This asserts a forceful bias against general comments and criticisms by establishing a very high threshhold for relevance. While no, no one is prevented from other kinds of postings, the bias is nonetheless established. [BA] Specifically, comments were requested to be sent to the IAB and/or to the IETF list. In the first iteration of comments, the IAB mailing list was given as the place to send comments, and a number of comments were received which resulted in changes to the document. While it might be considered inconvenient, similarly persuasive comments could be received in this round as well. As noted in the announcement, the intent is for the document to be signed by the IETF and IAB Chairs, both of whom are members of the IAB. Were the process followed in approval of IAB statements to be applied here, then IAB consensus would be required for approval. In making up their minds, members of the IAB can consider any relevant information, including the comments in this and the earlier round. Personally, in making up my mind I would look at the comments on their merit, ignoring the threshold in the announcement.
Re: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Dear Mr. Carpenter, I do not understand this. Would you want to examplify the ITU supposed good manners? I am lost. Portzamparc 2012/8/12 Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com: For those utterly mystified by the recent message under the above subject header, let me note that my spam folder earlier today included a rather incomprehensible message from JFC Morfin. I'm about to add jean-michel bernier de portzamparc to my spam filters too, of course. Alternatively, you could waste your time trying to make sense of those messages. Good luck with that. Regards Brian
Re: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
jean-michel == jean-michel bernier de portzamparc jma...@gmail.com
writes:
jean-michel Dear Mr. Carpenter,
jean-michel I do not understand this.
jean-michel Would you want to examplify the ITU supposed good manners?
jean-michel I am lost.
So am I.
You process to represent open source developers.
Yes, many of us are concerned about USG control over ICANN, but
I don't know where/how you pretend to represent us, when we can't even
agree on much at all on a good day.
It's funny though, I* pattern matches ITU as well.
{And.. why is some kind of open standards/open source person posting
messages that are in:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
(noticed the smart-quotes which do not render for me)... okay, 2
points for actually announcing that your message is in a non-standard
character set, but minus 10 for using that.}
--
Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works
pgpEAwPvF5qlV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 12, 2012, at 19:51, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote: If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than taking steps to avoid Internet governance being transferred by government decree to a secretive agency of the UN that runs by government majority. That is the question that is not clear to me either. I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one. We should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities that include the IETF, with an element of negotiation, even compromise, and so on. This is a case where leadership is actually required, and I don't think that process is an established one at all. We do know how to run liaisons, which is probably the closest model to adhere to. We know why we have handed the keys to this to the IAB. (The present document is not prescriptive anyway, it is descriptive, and the IETF chair in concert with the IAB chair should be able to act on this level after a modicum of consultation.) If the process question was actually raised to derail the signing of the current document, my reaction would be quite similar to Stewart's. As I said before, sometimes you have to act. Grüße, Carsten
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 12, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: Dave If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than taking steps to avoid Internet governance being transferred by government decree to a secretive agency of the UN that runs by government majority. Is that a correct assessments of your priorities? Stewart Personally I do not feel the tone of this message is most appropriate in this ongoing discussion. Lixia
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
At 10:51 12-08-2012, Stewart Bryant wrote: If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than taking steps to avoid Internet governance being transferred by government decree to a secretive agency of the UN that runs by government majority. Several hours ago the IAB approved collaboration guidelines with a secretive agency of the UN which is run by government majority. The US has already stated that it will not support proposals that would increase the exercise of control over Internet governance or content ( http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/telecom/196031.htm ). Internet governance is somewhat like political prostitution ( http://political-prostitution.com/ ). If the governments of the world want to fight about that for the benefit of humanity, it is their choice. I don't see why the IETF has to get into a fight about Internet governance. It is ok if the IETF Chair wants an affirmation supported by various SDOs to thrust under the nose of delegates in November. I understand that in some venues the only way to be heard is to make pompous speeches. At 14:49 12-08-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote: I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one. We should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities that include the IETF, with an element of negotiation, even compromise, and so on. This is a case where leadership is actually required, and I don't think that process is an established one at all. We do know how to The IAB Charter allows it to handle multilateral activities. If the process question was actually raised to derail the signing of the current document, my reaction would be quite similar to Stewart's. A person expects people to behave as sheep if the person mentions collective empowerment and doesn't want anyone to raise questions. The person could also smile, nod and ignore the questions as the sheep won't pursue the matter. If a person wanted to derail the signing of the current document the person would only delay the outcome by about a month. It would be somewhat entertaining as the IAB has already taken a vote on the matter. Please do not ask me to elaborate on how this might be done. As I said before, sometimes you have to act. And play god. :-) The following are selected quotes: Cooperation. Respectful cooperation between standards organizations, whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity, processes, and intellectual property rules of the others. The IETF should not be disrespectful by making any comments about the ITU which may have a negative connotation. :-) Collective empowerment. Commitment by affirming standards organizations and their participants to collective empowerment by striving for standards that: The affirmation is not a commitment taken by IETF participants. The IESG knows the path to take if it would like to get such a commitment. Regards, -sm
Re: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
2012/8/12 Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca jean-michel == jean-michel bernier de portzamparc jma...@gmail.com writes: jean-michel Dear Mr. Carpenter, jean-michel I do not understand this. jean-michel Would you want to examplify the ITU supposed good manners? jean-michel I am lost. So am I. I am too. So, we both are. You process to represent open source developers. ? Yes, many of us are concerned about USG control over ICANN, but I don't know where/how you pretend to represent us, when we can't even agree on much at all on a good day. Quite true: you say we pretend something we never pretended. Now, you welcome to help us. Cheers. MF Berny
Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm)
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:49:35PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one. We should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities that include the IETF Why is it useful? As far as I know, this is the very first time we have had a problem shaped exactly like this. There have been other issues with different sets of parties on other multilateral activities, but they appear to have demanded a different kind of response, since that's what they got. It seems to me that we could better spend our energies working on standards (using our actual standards development model rather than the abstract approximation in the affirmation!) than in working up rules to govern a circumstance that, we should all hope, will not arise again in our lifetimes. Not every single bit of human interaction requires a process rule. Some things just require judgement, and I encourage the leadership -- people we put (via the nomcom) into the position to exercise such judgement -- to do so. Best, A PS: I have on purpose not commented about the proposed statement, because the request was for strong objections, and I have none. -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Glen and others - I wanted to go back and comment on the assertion that Glen made that the IETF and IAB chairs do not 'represent' [him] or any one other than themselves. I believe he is correct with respect to himself, and incorrect with respect to the IETF. I agree the IETF is not a representative democracy, the IESG and IAB (and not the IETF) are probably best described as electoral meritocracies. We randomly select electors from a qualified pool which self-selects mostly from the set of all participants which in turn selects the IESG and the IAB from that set of all participants. I'm pretty sure that Carsten was using elect to describe that process. While the IESG and IAB may not speak for the IETF participants, they de facto and de jure do speak for the IETF. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. [CF the various RFCs detailing the responsibilities and duties of the IESG, IAB and their respective chairs, the RFCs detailing the standards process, and the various liaison's that have been arranged over the years.] I've noted over the years that the constituency of IETF participants tends to have bouts with BSDS - back seat driver syndrome, and this is mostly not helpful. We (referring to the broad set of IETF participants going back 25+ years) have over time evolved and agreed upon various ways of moving forward for generally accepted values of forward. Those ways include having granted the IESG the power to set the standards agenda, the IAB to negotiate and approve liaison agreements with standards bodies, the IESG to ultimately approve the standards, and the IESG, IETF Chair and IAB chair to declare a perception of consensus. We (the participants) have reserved to ourselves the rights jointly and severally to comment on all of the above, to be heard on even items delegated to the IESG and IAB and at times to carp and cavil on every single point of order. Some of this is good for the process. But we go too far way too often. In this case, the IAB, IESG and their respective chairs are doing the jobs we've asked them to do. Russ, correctly I believe, asked for objections to the issuance of such statement, he didn't ask for consensus. I also believe it would have been well within the current job description of the IAB and IETF Chairs to just go ahead and sign the thing. I think it comes down to this: If you (an IETF participant) have an objection to the statement, make it here. If you have an objection to the process in general then - form your objections, write an ID, and socialize what you want changed. If consensus shows you correct, it will apply down the line. If you have a belief that the process has been violated, it's appropriate to make that point, but give details rather than vague intimations. If you have an objection related to the members of the IESG or IAB performance, make them to the Nomcom or offer yourself as a candidate if you think you can do better or both. We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected a team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks. Efficiency suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it. Mike At 10:06 PM 8/11/2012, Glen Zorn wrote: On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 17:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker mailto:d...@dcrocker.netd...@dcrocker.net wrote: consensus-oriented process Sometimes, though, you have to act. While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer. Grüße, Carsten *) Well there was a call for comments, and it already supplied the first such set of epsilons. That may have to do when time is of the essence. (That's also what you choose your leadership for. If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ :-) Did the IETF morph into a representative democracy while I was sleeping? Last time I checked, Russ was the chair of a committee of managers, chosen by a random selection of proles who may or may not have taken the opinions of others into account in that selection. He was not elected, nor does he speak for the IETF; ditto for Bernard. If they wish to sign this statement (with which I, by and large, agree, BTW), that's fine. If they wish to list all their titles (IETF-bestowed otherwise), degrees, etc., that's fine, too, but not if the intent is to imply that they somehow represent me or any one other than themselves. If support by IETF members at-large is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a much better idea much less deceptive.
Re: Please, not more process (was: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm)
On Aug 13, 2012, at 04:58, Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com wrote: Why is it useful? Because it elicits considered reactions like yours and Mike StJohns', and allows us to make explicit and affirm the (rough) consensus that we seem to share about the role and purview of our leadership. (I'm not asking for another RFC, I'm just asking that we do consciously what we are doing, also so it may serve as a precedent.) Grüße, Carsten (This is likely my last message on this subject.)
REMINDER: IPv6 Privacy Survey Response Requested
The IAB is working on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-privacy-considerations 'Privacy Considerations for Internet Protocols'; in order to better understand the implementation status of IPv6 privacy mechanisms in operating system stacks, those familiar with OS IPv6 implementations are asked to complete a short survey. http://www.iab.org/activities/programs/privacy-program/ipv6-priv-survey/ The survey responses will be used in a detailed write-up on IPv6 privacy; privacy reviews of other IETF protocols are available here. http://www.iab.org/activities/programs/privacy-program/privacy-reviews/ Please send responses to iab-ipv6-privacy-sur...@i1b.org by August 16, 2012. If you have questions, please send them to iab-ipv6-privacy-sur...@i1b.org.
REMINDER: Call for Comment on Architectural Considerations on Application Features in the DNS
The IAB has issued an IETF-wide Call for Comment on http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-iab-dns-applications Architectural Considerations on Application Features in the DNS. The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC within the IAB stream. The Call for Comment will last until August 16, 2012. Please send comments to i...@iab.org, or submit them via TRAC. https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6rid=49gid=0k1=934k2=10958tid=134246 7769
IAB approves publication of IETF and ITU-T Standardization Sector Collaboration Guidelines as an Informational RFC
The IAB has approved publication of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc3356bis IETF and ITU-T Standardization Sector Collaboration Guidelines as an Informational RFC in the IAB Stream. ITU-T TSAG https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2012-07-31-itu-t-tsa g-the-iab-update-of-ietf-and-itu-t-collaboration-guidelines-attachment-1.doc x has agreed to the text.
IAB approves publication of Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions as an Informational RFC
The IAB has approved publication of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-extension-recs Design Considerations for Protocol Extensions as an Informational RFC within the IAB stream.
IAB re-appoints Ole Jacobsen as IETF representative to the ICANN Nomcom
The IAB has appointed Ole Jacobsen http://icannwiki.com/index.php/Ole_Jacobsen as the IETF representative to the 2013 ICANN Nomcom http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom .
NomCom 2012-2013: Results of Random Selection
Random selection of the voting members for this year's NomCom is now complete. The following individuals were selected using the previously published seeds and the algorithm from RFC 3797: (Details of random selection can be found at the bottom of this message) 090 Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software 025 Yi (Aaron) Ding, Univ. of Helsinki 092 Teemu Savolainen, Nokia 126 Leaf Yeh, Huawei 024 Dhruv Dhody, Huawei 031 Toerless Eckert, Cisco 122 Steven White, Alcatel-Lucent 096 Karen Seo, BBN 081 David Meyer, Cisco 041 Jeff Haas, Juniper Note that the NomCom cannot contain more than two voting members with the same primary affiliation. Therefore, in performing random selection, the following individuals were bypassed: (See RFCs 3797 and 3777 for more information) 132 Qian (Cathy) Zhou, Huawei 002 Rajiv Asati, Cisco I will be contacting these individuals during the coming week to confirm that they are able and willing to serve on the NomCom. Please contact me with any questions or concerns about the random selection process. Any challenge to the results of the random selection must be made by by August 19, 2012 at 17:00 EDT (UTC - 4). The final list of NomCom members will be announced on August 19. The seed values used for random selection were: Canadian Lottery Lotto 649 Saturday August 11, 2012 Results: (7 numbers including the bonus number: numbers between 1 and 49) 17 20 22 35 38 48 36 US National debt (Debt Held by the Public), published by the Treasury department as of Thursday, August 9, 2012 Last 8 digits, ignore the commas and periods: 90193202 US National debt (Intragovernmental Holdings), published by the Treasury department as of Thursday, August 9, 2012 Last 8 digits, ignore the commas and periods: 55598744 Euromillions Lottery Friday August 10, 2012 Results: (7 numbers including the star balls: 5 numbers between 1 and 50 and 2 star balls between 1 and 11) 11 17 21 48 50 9 10 Therefore using the algorithm in RFC 3797, the input string to the MD5 hash function was: 17.20.22.35.36.38.48./90193202./55598744./9.10.11.17.21.48.50./ Resulting in the following sequence of hash values: INDEXHEX VALUE of MD5 DIV SELECTED 1 ca30d5996de35ba57b393541328c4159 134 - 90 - 2 b3eda7607645301ccca475b92da143d3 133 - 25 - 3 eb9b33ab80eb4b74ed8c296181ca26cd 132 - 92 - 4 7f8814853ec0970ca2cbc7f52b255807 131 - 126 - 5 217c398a17e1f964e71d474c1cd42e29 130 - 24 - 6 a208db692053903684516875b6931cef 129 - 31 - 7 d63518ef791a77442a223253298a9974 128 - 122 - 8 ae454018265df1b297350902e4362582 127 - 96 - 9 6b0218d4ad58756e242bde2ff1509633 126 - 81 - 10 10a682cb3bf7c10e3b96487b5dafe4a9 125 - 132 - 11 bb88a0da78260e1b09825f15628a7965 124 - 2 - 12 6168d40cf2eb896e0e13af709e8998b2 123 - 41 -
