Charter to BCP or Info? (Re: A charter for the IESG)
Pete, since I'm more fond of being right than of being consistent.. I want to try to argue for the INFO case some more thoughts on the BCP vs INFO issue. Short argument: - IF the community thinks that process BCPs should in general be followed - IF the community agrees that changing BCPs is a slow process - IF the community thinks that the process components described in the IESG charter need to be changed on shorter notice than the release cycle for BCP - THEN the IESG charter should be an INFO document More background: As Keith Moore said on the problem-statement list - IETF has two common practices that almost always produce poor results: 1. trying to solve a problem before it is understood 2. trying to document existing practice and desirable practice at the same time please, let's not make either of these mistakes with the IESG charter The problem-statement effort will likely result in changes in the IETF structure. Including the role of the IESG - I would be very disappointed if it did not! So the current IESG charter will not have much direct effect on what the IETF process is after that process has completed. We then have 3 cases I can think of, for the period between now and the end of the problem-statement effort: - The community thinks that the current charter is fine, and wants to constrain the IESG to continue to behave accordingly until the new process comes along: It needs to be BCP, because that's the only thing that constrains. - The community thinks that the process needs to be changed in ways that are inconsistent with the charter as written, but that it's OK to discuss the changes for a long time before making them: BCP works fine, because we can reissue the BCP when we need to change the process. - The community thinks that process needs to be changed, and on short notice, in ways that are inconsistent with the charter as written, but consistent with the older BCPs (2026 and friends): INFO is the right answer, because this allows the IESG to do what it thinks is right without being constrained by the charter text, while preserving the theory that BCPs ought to be followed. (There's a fourth case - that the community thinks that BCPs are just advisory documents that can be ignored at will. I don't think that's a path we want to start down but in that case, the distinction does not matter...) Harald --On lørdag, mars 08, 2003 19:20:49 -0800 Pete Resnick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/8/03 at 5:22 PM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: I think that there could be considerable value in publishing a document that explains what the IESG believes its charter to be (#1 above). Among other things, this could serve as a useful baseline for any changes that the community decides to make as a result of the problem-statement effort. But, I would prefer to see such a document published as an Info RFC, with wording that would discourage misinterpretation of the document as a community mandate. I agree wholeheartedly with Margaret, with regard to both the value of such a document and the form it should take. I believe it would be incredibly useful to the problem-statement group, especially since it has been said that some of the items in the problem-statement draft do not reflect the reality of how the IESG operates. It would be good to actually see how the IESG views its operations. I also think that an Informational RFC is exactly what is called for; a BCP would require IETF consensus and would inappropriately compete with the problem-statement work. pr -- Pete Resnick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
Re: Acronyms Et Al.
David J. Aronson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anybody got an OED? The OED defines initialism as The use of initials; a significative group of initial letters. Now spec. a group of initial letters used as an abbreviation for a name or expression, each letter or part being pronounced separately (contrasted with ACRONYM). It references 1984 Word Ways, XVII. i. 48 The work consulted by Wolpow distinguishes abbreviations and initialisms -- maybe this is a good place to look for further information. acronym is A word formed from the initial letters of other words. But I doubt that this distinction is helpful in our field. Quite a few initialisms are brutally acronymed by significant numbers of speakers (SQL, SCSI, ACL, TCAM).
Re: Acronyms Et Al.
Florian Weimer wrote: I doubt that this distinction is helpful in our field. Quite a few initialisms are brutally acronymed And nouns brutally verbed by significant numbers of speakers (SQL, SQL was, once upon a time, called SEQUEL, with the first E standing for English. Reasons given vary. Some say vaguely legal reasons. One professor said the French objected. B-) SCSI, ACL, TCAM). TCAM is an example of a further phenomenon, the partial acronym, at least when pronounced tee-cam -- David J. Aronson, Software Engineer for hire in Washington DC area. See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, references, etc.
Re: Acronyms Et Al.
David J. Aronson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I doubt that this distinction is helpful in our field. Quite a few initialisms are brutally acronymed And nouns brutally verbed acronymed is blessed by the OED. 8-)
SF restaurant stuff
Do you constantly run into your fellow convention goers at dinner? Are you concerned you're getting ripped off by restaurants that serve low quality food? Do you feel that you've just stayed five days in a city and know nothing more about it than when you arrived? If you answered yes to these questions you are suffering from conventionitis. Don't let that happen to you in San Francisco. Here are some of my favorite restaurants. The fancier ones require reservations, but during the week they shouldn't be too hard to come by. If you don't see a genre here, that certainly doesn't mean San Francisco lacks it. It just means I haven't eaten there. http://www.ofcourseimright.com/~lear/sfrestaurant.html Eliot ps: no, I'm not keeping a list to be updated.
Re: Acronyms Et Al.
acronymed is blessed by the OED. 8-) the world really is going to hell
Re: Acronyms Et Al.
Randy Bush wrote: acronymed is blessed by the OED. 8-) the world really is going to hell Welcome. Here's your accordion -- David J. Aronson, Software Engineer for hire in Washington DC area. See http://destined.to/program/ for online resume, references, etc.
Network Working Group
From your draft IESG Charter: Network Working Group 40 years ago a group of researchers was funded by DARPA to study packet-based communications, one part of which was the Network Working Group. Part of this group has since become the IRTF's End2End Research Group, and the rest of the functions have devolved on the IAB and the IETF. The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20 years. I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves.
RE: Network Working Group
I totally support your suggestion. I think it is best if the RFCs mention the specific name of the WG that created them instead. -Shahram -Original Message- From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:17 PM To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Network Working Group From your draft IESG Charter: Network Working Group 40 years ago a group of researchers was funded by DARPA to study packet-based communications, one part of which was the Network Working Group. Part of this group has since become the IRTF's End2End Research Group, and the rest of the functions have devolved on the IAB and the IETF. The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20 years. I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves.
RE: A charter for the IESG
Margaret, Pete, As much value as it has, I totally agree with the two previous speakers. I don't currently see any benefit of putting the IESG charter document forward as output of the community, but as communication from IESG to the community. I believe that the problem-statement WG and the community as a whole should review and then conclude what the actual charter should be. Cheers, Jonne. -Original Message- From: ext Pete Resnick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 7:21 PM To: Margaret Wasserman Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A charter for the IESG On 3/8/03 at 5:22 PM -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote: I think that there could be considerable value in publishing a document that explains what the IESG believes its charter to be (#1 above). Among other things, this could serve as a useful baseline for any changes that the community decides to make as a result of the problem-statement effort. But, I would prefer to see such a document published as an Info RFC, with wording that would discourage misinterpretation of the document as a community mandate. I agree wholeheartedly with Margaret, with regard to both the value of such a document and the form it should take. I believe it would be incredibly useful to the problem-statement group, especially since it has been said that some of the items in the problem-statement draft do not reflect the reality of how the IESG operates. It would be good to actually see how the IESG views its operations. I also think that an Informational RFC is exactly what is called for; a BCP would require IETF consensus and would inappropriately compete with the problem-statement work. pr -- Pete Resnick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
RE: Network Working Group
Perhaps with a pointer to where the archived discussions of the working group might be found? [Yes, I know that archives are ephemeral. But surely we could get archive.org or someone to change that?] On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Shahram Davari wrote: I totally support your suggestion. I think it is best if the RFCs mention the specific name of the WG that created them instead. -Shahram -Original Message- From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 3:17 PM To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Network Working Group From your draft IESG Charter: Network Working Group 40 years ago a group of researchers was funded by DARPA to study packet-based communications, one part of which was the Network Working Group. Part of this group has since become the IRTF's End2End Research Group, and the rest of the functions have devolved on the IAB and the IETF. The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20 years. I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves. -- Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm --It's warm here.--
RE: Network Working Group
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 10 13:18:29 2003 * Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:14:33 -0500 (EST) * From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] * To: Shahram Davari [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Cc: 'Fred Baker' [EMAIL PROTECTED], *Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: RE: Network Working Group * MIME-Version: 1.0 * X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1 * * Perhaps with a pointer to where the archived discussions of the working * group might be found? * The archive of early NWG discussions is the RFC series itself. The other archives, which no doubt existed, were written on DEC tapes, IBM 360 mainframe files, etc. Not too useful today. Bob Braden
Re: Network Working Group
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Fred Baker wrote: From your draft IESG Charter: Network Working Group ... I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves. From 2223bis, section 4.1: Please see the front page of this memo for an example of the front page heading. On the first page there is no running header. The top of the first page has the following items left justified: Network Working Group This traditional title must be left-justified on the first line of the heading. It denoted the ARPANET research group that founded the RFC series. The place to change this would be 2223bis, not in the IESG charter draft. If you change it in 2223bis, the RFC Editor will change it everywhere else :-) Not that I am advocating changing it -- I don't care either way. Kireeti.
RE: Network Working Group
At 01:27 PM 3/10/2003 -0800, Bob Braden wrote: The archive of early NWG discussions is the RFC series itself. I started to reply saying that, but I think he's referring to a pointer to the working group's discussions. Personally, if I were to do anything like that, I would point to the working group's charter, which in turn points to the archive and discussion list, and gives context. But I'm not certain that is necessary if one knows how to find the IETF and its web page.
RE: Network Working Group
Fred Baker wrote: Network Working Group The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20 years. I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them. The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date themselves. Fred, I'd respectfully like to disagree. I believe the Network Working Group tag represents the continuity in Internet engineering and documentation that follows continuously from Steve Crocker's RFC 1 (written April 1969 in a dry bathtub, I believe, so as not to wake the friends he was staying with) down to the latest RFCs and I-Ds. I'm not sure that I'm a good enough engineer to have been involved with the original Network Working Group, but I'm honored to participate in the design tradition (especially the open publication of informational and standards documents, rough consensus, working code, etc.) that that label represents. - dan -- Dan Kohn mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankohn.com/ tel:+1-650-327-2600
Re: Network Working Group
Mind! I don't mean to say that I know of my own knowledge what relevance there is to the text string that appears in the upper left corner of the first page of every RFC. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard that as a place to put something useful such as the IETF working group name. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the RFC header boilerplate; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Internet's done for. You will, therefore, permit me to repeat, emphatically, that this is a document of the Network Working Group. [excerpted from a previous debate on this subject a few years back, with apologies to the ghost of Charles Dickens]
RE: Network Working Group
* From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 10 14:11:52 2003 * X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:03:31 -0800 * To: Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] * From: Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Subject: RE: Network Working Group * Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Mime-Version: 1.0 * X-AntiVirus: scanned by AMaViS 0.2.1 * * At 01:27 PM 3/10/2003 -0800, Bob Braden wrote: * The archive of early NWG discussions is the RFC series itself. * * I started to reply saying that, but I think he's referring to a pointer to * the working group's discussions. * There are minutes of a number of key meetings recorded in RFCs. EG more than you ever wanted to know about how FTP or Telnet or NCP came about!
Re: Network Working Group
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:59:28 PST, Bob Braden said: There are minutes of a number of key meetings recorded in RFCs. EG more than you ever wanted to know about how FTP or Telnet or NCP came about! Any in particular you'd nominate for cautionary tale status? ;) pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SF restaurant stuff
What? No Cha Cha Cha? For shame Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/10/03 06:12 AM Do you constantly run into your fellow convention goers at dinner? Are you concerned you're getting ripped off by restaurants that serve low quality food? Do you feel that you've just stayed five days in a city and know nothing more about it than when you arrived? If you answered yes to these questions you are suffering from conventionitis. Don't let that happen to you in San Francisco. Here are some of my favorite restaurants. The fancier ones require reservations, but during the week they shouldn't be too hard to come by. If you don't see a genre here, that certainly doesn't mean San Francisco lacks it. It just means I haven't eaten there. http://www.ofcourseimright.com/~lear/sfrestaurant.html Eliot ps: no, I'm not keeping a list to be updated.
