On Tue, 14 May 2013, Dale R. Worley wrote:
The critical difference is that the IETF is an organization of *buyers*
rather than an organization of *sellers*.
Not that I have been active in the IETF that long (only a few years), but
IETF is pretty vendor-heavy.
Otoh hand the whole point with
On 05/15/2013 02:00 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Otoh hand the whole point with IETF is that *nobody* is *excluded*, it
consists of all interested parties and the barrier of entry is really
low.
That's what many of us would like to believe. But IETF certainly
doesn't consist of all
On Wed, 15 May 2013, Keith Moore wrote:
Yes, I'm aware that some people (including myself) have effectively
participated on occasion without doing either of the above. But I think
it's hard to effectively participate in IETF on a regular basis without
a significant investment in both time
On 05/15/2013 02:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013, Keith Moore wrote:
Yes, I'm aware that some people (including myself) have effectively
participated on occasion without doing either of the above. But I
think it's hard to effectively participate in IETF on a regular
For diversity purposes in NomCom-participants we may need both
face-to-face participants and remote participant opportunities
considered (may be 5% NomCom to be remote). RFC3777 does make
conditions, but changing it in IETF may not be wanted by active
participants because they are face-to-face
And yes, it's hard to participate without spending (significant) time. I
don't know how else this could be done though. It's at least my opinion that
if time is made available, the barrier of entry is probably the lowest of any
similar organisation I can think of.
That is my experience as
I feel that the discussion is stuck on the different perceptions on whether an
AD's actions are either blocking reasonable progress, or an essential
correction to a mistake that went undetected.
I'd like to make a couple of observations. First of all, we at the IESG process
10-25 documents
And yes, it's hard to participate without spending (significant) time. I
don't know how else this could be done though. It's at least my opinion that
if time is made available, the barrier of entry is probably the lowest of any
similar organisation I can think of.
I like the article it is
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2013, Dale R. Worley wrote:
The critical difference is that the IETF is an organization of
*buyers* rather than an organization of *sellers*.
Not that I have been active in the IETF that long (only a few years),
but IETF is pretty vendor-heavy.
On Wed, 15 May 2013, Keith Moore wrote:
I'd like to see WGs be more pro-active about periodically summarizing
the salient points of their proposals, determining which parties outside
of the WG are likely to be affected, explicitly soliciting input from
those parties, and explicitly
On 05/15/2013 10:00 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 15 May 2013, Keith Moore wrote:
I'd like to see WGs be more pro-active about periodically summarizing
the salient points of their proposals, determining which parties
outside of the WG are likely to be affected, explicitly soliciting
On 5/14/2013 5:53 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 14, 2013, at 8:27 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
That is what happens exactly because the DISCUSS holds up the
document, and most ADs don't want to burn time stalling their documents
if there's a way around that delay.
It can only happen if
On 5/14/2013 4:57 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
And your bottom line is exactly what te rules say, what I said, what Ted
said, and what Joe agreed is reasonable.
Unfortunately, it's not what happens/is happening right now.
Joe
On 5/14/2013 4:03 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
The whole point of a DISCUSS is to have a discussion.
The *whole* point of a DISCUSS is to hold a document in IETF review
until a discussion is *resolved*.
There are thus three parts:
- having a discussion
- pausing the document
On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Publishing broken or unclear documents is not progress.
Keith
Broken, agreed.
Unclear, nope - please review the NON-DISCUSS criteria, notably:
The motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not clear
enough. At the IESG review stage,
On 05/15/2013 10:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Publishing broken or unclear documents is not progress.
Keith
Broken, agreed.
Unclear, nope - please review the NON-DISCUSS criteria, notably:
The motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not
On 5/14/2013 10:05 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
...
For that matter, working groups are too often echo chambers where a set
of people manage to isolate themselves from input from those whose work
they might otherwise effect.Some people seem to think that working
group output should be
On May 15, 2013, at 10:39 AM 5/15/13, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Publishing broken or unclear documents is not progress.
Keith
Broken, agreed.
Unclear, nope - please review the NON-DISCUSS criteria, notably:
The motivation for a
On May 15, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
The motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not clear enough.
At the IESG review stage, protocols should not be blocked because they
provide capabilities beyond what seems necessary to acquit their
IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't specifically
authorized in a WG's charter.
- Keith
On May 15, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote:
On May 15, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
The motivation for a particular
Joe,
Broken, agreed.
Yep.
Unclear, nope - please review the NON-DISCUSS criteria, notably:
The motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not clear enough. At
the IESG review stage, protocols should not be blocked because they provide
capabilities beyond what seems necessary
Hi,
The evidence seems to show that the IESG is getting faster
at their job and WGs are getting slower at theirs. I don't
see any need for DISCUSS Rules. All the AD reviews I've
experienced have improved the document, sometimes a lot.
All DISCUSS issues got cleared with reasonable (even good)
On May 15, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't specifically
authorized in a WG's charter.
- Keith
Why? There's definitely a process failure there, and it should be blamed on the
WG chairs
+1 to what Jari says below.
From my perspective, the important things to keep in mind:
1) Discuss criteria should be principles, not rigid rules. The details
of the issue at hand always matter, and it will sometimes come down to
judgement calls where reasonable individuals just might disagree.
I don't think the IETF needs to be in the profile/resume
business. There are plenty of other places that do a fine job already.
What I do think the IETF should do is *require* that participants
identify themselves. That means knowing who they are (a name and email
contact) and an affiliation. For
On 5/15/2013 7:55 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 15, 2013, at 10:41 AM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
The motivation for a particular feature of a protocol is not
clearenough. At the IESG review stage, protocols should not be blocked
because they provide capabilities beyond what
On May 15, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
I'm impressed that you have such a specific interpretation that this
criteria refers to the entire document, even when it talks about the
feature of a protocol.
The motivation for a feature of a protocol is not clear enough. What's
On 5/15/2013 10:15 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 15, 2013, at 12:36 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
I'm impressed that you have such a specific interpretation that this
criteria refers to the entire document, even when it talks about the
feature of a protocol.
The motivation for a feature
At 08:06 15-05-2013, Keith Moore wrote:
IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't
specifically authorized in a WG's charter.
I read a few charters:
core:
Dec 2099 - HOLD (date TBD) Constrained security bootstrapping specification
submitted to IESG
ancp:
On May 15, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
You don't agree that the motivation for the difference between using 16-bit
vs. 32-bit ExIDs is sufficient, even though that is already discussed in the
document.
I don't think this is a topic that the IETF as a whole is likely to
--On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 18:25 +0200 Thomas Narten
nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I don't think the IETF needs to be in the profile/resume
business. There are plenty of other places that do a fine job
already.
What I do think the IETF should do is *require* that
participants identify
On 5/15/2013 11:08 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On May 15, 2013, at 1:23 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
You don't agree that the motivation for the difference between using 16-bit vs.
32-bit ExIDs is sufficient, even though that is already discussed in the
document.
I don't think this is a
On 05/15/2013 02:48 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 5/15/2013 11:08 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
I don't think this is a topic that the IETF as a whole is likely to
find very interesting. However, if anyone is curious, they are welcome
to read the DISCUSS here and see if they agree with your
characterization
On 05/15/2013 11:33 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On May 15, 2013, at 6:06 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
wrote:
IMO, IESG should have grounds to reject any document that isn't specifically
authorized in a WG's charter.
- Keith
Why? There's definitely a process failure there, and it
From: Thierry Moreau thierry.mor...@connotech.com
Some sections of the IETF would be more vendor-heavy, e.g. the routing
area. In those sections, only a serious economic study might tell to
which extent the patent pool (wikipedia is your friend) excludes the
permissionless inventor in
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
The critical difference is that the IETF is an organization of
*buyers* rather than an organization of *sellers*.
Without wishing to be nasty, I will point out that we have way more
vendors than operators participating in our standards
The claim (or one of the claims) is that some ADs may place Discusses that are
intended to raise a discussion with the authors/WG that could equally have been
raised with a Comment or through direct email. This, it is claimed, may
unnecessarily delay the document from completing the publication
On May 15, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
I suggest that the former is a bad result. Not that the authors/WG will ignore
the discussion, but if they disagree on something the AD considers very
important, the authors/WG have no incentive to participate in the
On 5/15/2013 7:49 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
The DISCUSS isn't there to make documents better - that's for COMMENTs. A
DISCUSS there to catch a set of problems and to*block* the document's progress until that
problem is resolved.
I'll agree with you *if* you consider an unclear description
Tom,
There's a compatibility view button in recent versions of IE that I've
found helps with some websites. See
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/internet-explorer/products/ie-9/features/compatibility-view.
You can also find it in the Tools menu.
Cheers,
Andy
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:13 AM,
John C Klensin john dash ietf at jck dot com wrote:
I think it is all very well to ask for affiliations in principle
and, also in principle, I agree that it is a good idea. But, in
practice, I think there are a lot of clarifications and other
changes that would be required and that might or
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting
a new version of the draft.
This draft has not been updated
You want resumes? You've got linkedin for that.
The sort of thing Doug describes is actually quite common.
For example, I once had a group chair threaten to have me disciplined by the
company
I worked for, for pointing out the technical failings of his pet protocol.
The IETF isn't a
Hi John.
I agree there are a number of specific cases where there is no
simple/obvious way to handle. I'd be OK with something fairly simple
as unaffiliated or consultant or something more nuanced. But I'd
like to think those are edge cases (but could of course be wrong in
how common they are). I
On 05/15/2013 07:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
So, what would you have me (and others like me) put on
registration forms so that I'm not part of that undifferentiated
180 names?
How about 7 densely worded paragraphs?
Sorry, couldn't resist:-)
S.
On 5/14/13 13:32 , David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On May 14, 2013, at 11:02 AM, David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
The third goal you refer to focuses on the need for accurate registration
information ... in order to meet a variety of operational requirements. I believe
this to be a valid
In all earnestness I don't think a resume will be necessary at all :).
--
Regards,
Edwin A. Opare
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie
wrote:
On 05/15/2013 07:38 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
So, what would you have me (and others like me) put on
I initially replied to address Keith's comment. But a few things on Joe's:
On 5/15/13 7:41 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/15/2013 10:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Publishing broken or unclear documents is not progress.
Broken, agreed.
Unclear, nope - please
On 05/15/2013 09:07 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
I initially replied to address Keith's comment. But a few things on
Joe's:
On 5/15/13 7:41 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 05/15/2013 10:39 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 5/14/2013 9:54 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
Publishing broken or unclear documents is not
--On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 14:28 -0700 Doug Ewell
d...@ewellic.org wrote:
...
I did this because
the WG at the time included a malicious contributor who had
already contacted the HR department of another contributor's
employer, asking them to professionally discipline the
employee,
--On Thursday, May 16, 2013 00:55 -0400 Keith Moore
mo...@network-heretics.com wrote:
Which is to say, if there is only a single AD blocking a
document, that block is essentially a 2 week affair if you
are willing to push the point. No need for negotiating; if
the WG decides that the AD
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Problem Statement and Requirements of Peer-to-Peer Streaming Protocol
(PPSP)'
(draft-ietf-ppsp-problem-statement-15.txt) as Informational RFC
This document is the product of the Peer to Peer Streaming Protocol
Working Group.
The IESG contact
The IESG has received a request from the Call Control UUI Service for SIP
WG (cuss) to consider the following document:
- 'A Mechanism for Transporting User to User Call Control Information in
SIP'
draft-ietf-cuss-sip-uui-10.txt as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the
Folks,
The goal of the SCIM design team was to set the WG on a path
towards scim 2.0 by identifying and proposing solutions to the
major issues. The time has now come to close the design team
and thank the contributors for all their hard work.
In order to preserve the momentum and make sure the
This is an announcement of an Interim Meeting for the HTTPbis WG.
The goal of the meeting is to discuss the issues against HTTP/2 and formulate
proposals to bring back to the WG.
We'll be meeting in Hamburg, Germany from 5-7 August 2013. Adobe has kindly
offered to host.
More details are
55 matches
Mail list logo
