arpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Facts, please, not handwaving [Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant
the IETF embrace an open Election Process]
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:09:22 +0200
Phill,
As a result th
Fred,
you talk about interoperability between vendors, this is good. Let
not forget interoperability with users, i.e. our own IETF document
interoperability with the external standard we leverage and the user
demand. Waiting for industrial products not to excite the public is
too long and ch
On Sep 21, 2006, at 5:08 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Having seen the consequences of one-step standards processes,
especially in environments in which the standards designers are not
very closely tied to products that are shipping or ready to ship, I
remain strongly committed to a standards mo
--On Wednesday, 20 September, 2006 08:23 -0400 Scott Bradner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Spencer remembered:
>> My understanding (as author of three of the proposals) was
>> that for most of the time newtrk was in existence, the
>> working group's attention was focused on ISDs as a way of
>>
> "Eliot" == Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eliot> Brian,
>> But I think there is a message here - badly phrased perhaps - that
>> running code is needed for such proposals to be thoroughly considered.
>> Suppose there was a proposal that all RFCs should be sourced as X
> "Jefsey" == Jefsey Morfin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think the following is a good summary of our quandary.
Jefsey> At 11:17 20/09/2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> Well, I think there's a lot of confusion between the statement "We,
>> as engineers trying to maintain our scienti
Spencer remembered:
> My understanding (as author of three of the proposals) was that for most of
> the time newtrk was in existence, the working group's attention was focused
> on ISDs as a way of avoiding the need to tackle the 3 stage process. So I'm
> not sure there was even a call for conse
At 11:17 20/09/2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
>Well, I think there's a lot of confusion between the statement "We,
>as engineers trying to maintain our scientific integrity as a whole,
>consider this specification a good thing and recommend it", and "We,
>as disinterested engineers trying to be p
Brian,
> But I think there is a message here - badly phrased perhaps - that
> running code is needed for such proposals to be thoroughly considered.
> Suppose there was a proposal that all RFCs should be sourced as XML
> files. We have a lot of running code to measure that proposal against.
> Dougl
My apologies in advance for posting in this thread.
There was, to recall history, no consensus in newtrk for any particular
choice among the various options for simplifying the 3 stage process.
So the IESG never saw or responded to any proposal in that area.
My understanding (as author of thre
Eliot Lear wrote:
I garbled:
To the IESG's credit you did provide at least
something of a menu of options, but it was
... not clear you would advance a draft even if we advanced one of those
options.
Well, there wasn't likely to be a blank check promise to advance
a draft, was there?
Bu
I garbled:
> To the IESG's credit you did provide at least
> something of a menu of options, but it was
>
... not clear you would advance a draft even if we advanced one of those
options.
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.o
Brian,
> There was consensus to put forward the ISD proposal, which the IESG
> kicked
> back, with an explanation of its issues, which you can find in the
> newtrk archive. That didn't lead to a revised ISD proposal.
So that it's clear, I am not now nor was I then a proponent of ISDs. I
think th
On Tue Sep 19 22:31:40 2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
I would argue that "Proposed Standard" as the end-of-the-line
in our standardization process is just wrong. I certainly can see
an argument for merging "Proposed" and "Draft" - but there are lots
of indications that even the simplified one
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
For what it is worth my takehome from the Montreal meeting was that there was
genuine desire for change but no recognition of consensus on a particular way
forward.
One of the reasons that there is no recognition of consensus on a way forward
is that we did not le
I would argue that "Proposed Standard" as the end-of-the-line
in our standardization process is just wrong. I certainly can see
an argument for merging "Proposed" and "Draft" - but there are lots
of indications that even the simplified one-step process of moving
from Draft to full Standa
> "Henning" == Henning Schulzrinne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henning> For this particular case, I don't think there is a
Henning> scientifically provable right answer, so a reasonable
Henning> approach is to pick a number (1 or 2 or 3 steps) that
Henning> most active particip
ndwaving [Re: Its about
> mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process]
>
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> >>>We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp
> the nettle
> >>>and align theory wit
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 4:13 AM
--> To: Brian E Carpenter
--> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: Facts, please, not handwaving [Re: Its about
--> mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open Election Process]
-->
--> Brian E Carpenter wrote
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I interpreted the microphone and hand-raising in Montreal that people
were tired of interminable process discussions that consume lots of
resources and in the end accomplish nothing.
Henning and Brian,
I think you are confusing "accomplish nothing" with "produces
Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle
and align theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
I'm sorry
I interpreted the microphone and hand-raising in Montreal that people
were tired of interminable process discussions that consume lots of
resources and in the end accomplish nothing.
One way to ensure that there are no such discussions is to make all such
discussions fruitless and interminable
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle
>> and align theory with reality.
>
> It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
> effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
I'm sorry, Brian, but t
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle and align
theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
Brian
__
On 9/19/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thankfully, the complete failure known as HTTP 1.1 would never make it
> to Proposed Standard under the unwritten process we have now. For
> example, it doesn't contain a mandatory, universally interop
Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thankfully, the complete failure known as HTTP 1.1 would never make it
> to Proposed Standard under the unwritten process we have now. For
> example, it doesn't contain a mandatory, universally interoperable
> authentication feature.
That's right, it doe
On 9/18/06, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Let's see - HTTP/1.1 was published as Proposed Standard in
> January 1997, and draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-00.txt was posted
> in November 1995.
The first drafts of the spec were s
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
[..]
Campaigns can be a pain, but they do have positive attributes. People
who have to campaign for a position are forced to think about the
contribution they intend to make, they have to set out a program of
action, they have to communicate it to the electora
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Phill,
>
> > As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active
> participants
> > that produces on average less than 3 standards a year and
> typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
>
> It is well understood
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 10:16:11AM -0700, todd glassey wrote:
> For instance - would Harald H ever let me run an initiative through IPR? -
> not a chance and his refusal to allow me to file my drafts under his WG is a
> violation of the IETF charter, and tortuous interference by he and the IESG
> t
On 9/18/06, Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have not done the work to review velocity from -00 to RFC, but perhaps
Bill Fenner has.
I haven't; I've been concentrating on the IESG part of the document lifecycle.
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Ie
At 09:09 18/09/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Phill,
>>As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active
>>participants that produces on average less than 3 standards a year
>>and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
>
>It is well understood that the Internet main
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Phill,
>
>> As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active
>> participants that produces on average less than 3 standards a year
>> and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
>
> It is well understood that the Internet mainly runs on Propose
Phill,
As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active participants that
produces on average less than 3 standards a year
and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
It is well understood that the Internet mainly runs on Proposed Standards,
so the appropriate metr
ssey
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Bierman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant the IETF embrace an open
Election Process
> Hallam
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Nelson, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think NOMCOM is like a Representative Town Meeting, in
which the representatives are chosen by a random selection
process, rather than by election. The outcome, which
supports in-depth consideration and substantial
> From: Nelson, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I think NOMCOM is like a Representative Town Meeting, in
> which the representatives are chosen by a random selection
> process, rather than by election. The outcome, which
> supports in-depth consideration and substantial, informed
> debate
37 matches
Mail list logo
