--On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 09:15 + Adrian Farrel
adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote:
...
So, my conclusion: it would be good to have more process
experiments if people feel the process needs to change.
However, it would appear that such experiments need:
- Thorough debate on an appropriate
On 2/3/2013 8:43 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
All of this could be summarized as it is better to have one's
ducks lined up before starting a community-wide discussion.
for the IETF, you mean cats shepherded, not ducks lined up...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
At 16:25 31-01-2013, Barry Leiba wrote:
We often pick on every suggested change and point out every possible
flaw, with different people holding out behind different flaws, and we
get stuck there. There seems to be some assumption, when we do this,
that our current process doesn't also have
We are a diverse community. Absent very, very strong consensus that a
problem is serious enough to warrant a change, the community is not likely
to line up automatically behind a proposal. We will always have some people
who prefer no change and some who offer their different, favorite
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 1/30/2013 1:15 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I do agree with
Spencer that getting consensus for a process change always looks like a
formidable task. Small changes never address enough of the problem or the
right
piece
On 1/31/2013 5:41 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
We are a diverse community. Absent very, very strong consensus that a
problem is serious enough to warrant a change, the community is not likely
to line up automatically
We often pick on every suggested change and point out every possible
flaw, with different people holding out behind different flaws, and we
get stuck there. There seems to be some assumption, when we do this,
that our current process doesn't also have significant flaws. But the
very reason
Well, is that a meta-judgment call?
I took the view that the full process expressed in draft-farrell-ft could not be
done by the IESG at their discretion. That is, that some of the steps proposed
constituted a significant variation from documented processes or
well-established behavior. Thus, it
I believe that Adrian did right in this case. This was IMO one of the
situations which in Spencer's language was 'middle path between lightweight
IESG decisions and full process BCP revisions' and a 3933 experiment could have
proved it right or wrong, useful or not. The community could not
Hi Adrian,
At 01:15 30-01-2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I do not take quite the same negative view as Stephen, but I do agree with
Spencer that getting consensus for a process change always looks like a
formidable task. Small changes never address enough of the problem
or the right
piece of the
On 1/30/2013 1:15 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
I do agree with
Spencer that getting consensus for a process change always looks like a
formidable task. Small changes never address enough of the problem or the right
piece of the problem. Large changes are too much in one go. :-) So, it seems to
Responses to Cullen below, but this is getting to the point
where unless someone else who likes the idea wants to join
the discussion, I'm going to conclude that we're collectively
either unwilling or unable to consider 3933 experiments and
regard this one as dead, which maybe means 3933 is
Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie writes:
Responses to Cullen below, but this is getting to the point
where unless someone else who likes the idea wants to join
the discussion, I'm going to conclude that we're collectively
either unwilling or unable to consider 3933 experiments and
On 1/29/2013 6:34 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie writes:
I'm going to conclude that we're collectively
either unwilling or unable to consider 3933 experiments and
regard this one as dead, which maybe means 3933 is dead-ish
too, I dunno. (And before someone
Hi Stephen,
At 01:59 29-01-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Responses to Cullen below, but this is getting to the point
where unless someone else who likes the idea wants to join
the discussion, I'm going to conclude that we're collectively
either unwilling or unable to consider 3933 experiments and
Just as a follow-up here ...
I was John's co-author on RFC 3933 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3933).
When we were working on the draft, the problem I thought we were
solving, was that the IESG needs to update the IETF's BCP processes from
time to time, but (1) it was like 32 simultaneous
IETF participants are unwilling or unable to
consider 3933 experiments. My second reaction was: what if draft-farrell-ft
was an IESG statement? Would the same outcome be reached?
When Stephen proposed his draft to the IESG, I counter-proposed an
IESG Statement that would essentially say that
I agree with your approach. However, if it should be tested by
community and reported successful then why we need to go through 5
years, just publish fast ways,
AB
Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:27:17 -0800
If this is an experiment, then you presumably answers to the following
questions:
My read of this draft is that it eliminates the need for rough consensus at
both the WG and IETF level. Basically the WG chair can just decide and even if
the WG disagrees with the chair. If the WG does not have consensus in WGLC that
they they do want to publish the draft, it still gets
I agree with your concerns and may suggest that the tests' results of
the running code SHOULD be reported inside a mandatory section of the
Fast-Tracked I-D to RFC.
AB
On 01/26/2013 Martin Rex wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
I don't know about the
Hello,
Sorry I missed your last paragraph in the snow storm.
So, Adrian, noting the ratio between discussion of this draft on
the IETF list in the last few weeks and discussions of
everything else, how long does professional courtesy to another
IESG member (presumably in combination with
Thomas said:
The crux of the issue is that any attempt at fast tracking is
fundamentally about short-circuiting some aspect of our review
processes.
Speaking as a Gen-ART reviewer, I am indeed worried by this aspect.
I feel I would have to spend much longer reviewing a draft if I
knew it had
On 1/22/13 10:31 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
a WG can
skip WG LC if they think its not needed.
???
When was the last time that happened? Did it require a consensus call
to determine?
Eliot
--On Friday, January 25, 2013 14:36 +0100 Eliot Lear
l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 1/22/13 10:31 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
a WG can
skip WG LC if they think its not needed.
???
When was the last time that happened? Did it require a
consensus call to determine?
Chair discretion. It is
John,
On 1/25/13 4:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
a WG can
skip WG LC if they think its not needed.
???
When was the last time that happened? Did it require a
consensus call to determine?
Chair discretion [... and five of paragraphs of text]
None of which answered my above questions. When
On 01/25/2013 03:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
In the context of draft-farrell-ft, the above makes the idea of
WG LC in parallel with IETF LC either irrelevant or bad news.
If the WG Chair (or AD) concludes that a WG LC is needed, then
the procedure should not be invoked. If a WG LC is not
--On Friday, January 25, 2013 16:31 +0100 Eliot Lear
l...@cisco.com wrote:
John,
On 1/25/13 4:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
a WG can
skip WG LC if they think its not needed.
???
When was the last time that happened? Did it require a
consensus call to determine?
Chair discretion [...
--On Friday, January 25, 2013 15:34 + Stephen Farrell
stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
...
All of this points out one of my main concerns. Almost as a
side-effect, the proposal formalizes a number of informal
procedures and mechanisms work pretty well most of the time
but, because they
Hiya,
On 01/25/2013 04:37 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
If I correctly understand the above, it lies at the root of the
problem I was trying to describe. This is really an experiment
if the effect of deciding we didn't want to make it permanent
was that we were at status quo ante, i.e., as if
Eliot Lear wrote:
On 1/25/13 4:27 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
a WG can skip WG LC if they think its not needed.
When was the last time that happened?
Did it require a consensus call to determine?
Chair discretion [... and five of paragraphs of text]
None of which answered my above
Hi Martin,
On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
I don't know about the last time it happened, but I know about
one time in Nov-2009 in the TLS WG (now rfc5746).
I recall that and agree with the sequence of events you
describe, but I'm not sure that that situation is
relevant when
Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 01/25/2013 09:36 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
I don't know about the last time it happened, but I know about
one time in Nov-2009 in the TLS WG (now rfc5746).
I recall that and agree with the sequence of events you
describe, but I'm not sure that that situation is
--On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 16:31 -0500 Thomas Narten
nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
FWIW, I share Joe's concerns. And Stephen's responses don't
really change my mind.
This document seems to have a bit of missing the forest for the
trees. In the overall scheme of things, I don't believe the
I do not really have time or desire to enter an extended discussion on
this document. It's pretty clear to me we just disagree. But I did
want to be on record as not supporting this document so that silence
wouldn't be taken as agreement or support.
A few specific followups below.
This
Hi, all,
On 1/11/2013 8:21 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Alexa,
Please be aware of this document that has just entered a four-week IETF last
call. The document describes a proposed IETF process experiment under the rules
of RFC 3933.
The proposed experiment calls on the IETF Secretariat to take
Hi Joe,
On 01/22/2013 04:39 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Hi, all,
On 1/11/2013 8:21 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Alexa,
Please be aware of this document that has just entered a four-week
IETF last
call. The document describes a proposed IETF process experiment under
the rules
of RFC 3933.
On 1/22/2013 9:00 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Joe,
On 01/22/2013 04:39 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
...
This is a silly idea.
So you're in two minds about it eh:-)
First, running code should already be considered as part of the context
of review.
Second, running code is not correlated to
On 01/22/2013 05:14 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
On 1/22/2013 9:00 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Joe,
On 01/22/2013 04:39 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
...
This is a silly idea.
So you're in two minds about it eh:-)
First, running code should already be considered as part of the context
of
Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 1/11/2013 8:21 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
The proposed experiment calls on the IETF Secretariat to take specific
actions under certain circumstances in corner cases of the experiment.
Specifically:
]
] 8. If at any point in the fast-track process the
FWIW, I share Joe's concerns. And Stephen's responses don't really
change my mind.
This document seems to have a bit of missing the forest for the
trees. In the overall scheme of things, I don't believe the draft will
materially help, and is at best a distraction from dealing with
meaningful
Hiya,
On 01/22/2013 05:14 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
It puts more work on the community at large to review an idea that could
have been either rejected or significantly improved in a smaller
community before wasting the larger communities time.
Actually it occurs to me that there might be
Hi Thomas,
On 01/22/2013 09:31 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
FWIW, I share Joe's concerns. And Stephen's responses don't really
change my mind.
Ah well. I'm willing to keep trying:-)
This document seems to have a bit of missing the forest for the
trees. In the overall scheme of things, I don't
Hi John,
Bits and pieces below...
On 01/22/2013 07:04 PM, John Leslie wrote:
Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote:
On 1/11/2013 8:21 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
The proposed experiment calls on the IETF Secretariat to take specific
actions under certain circumstances in corner cases of the
Hi Ned,
On 01/16/2013 03:40 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
Actually I think you make a couple of great points that ought be
mentioned in the draft about implementability. (No chance you'd
have time to craft a paragraph? If not, I'll try pinch text from
above:-) Now that you point it out like
Hi Ned,
On 01/16/2013 03:40 AM, Ned Freed wrote:
Actually I think you make a couple of great points that ought be
mentioned in the draft about implementability. (No chance you'd
have time to craft a paragraph? If not, I'll try pinch text from
above:-) Now that you point it out like that, I'm
Martin,
On 01/15/2013 02:10 AM, Martin Rex wrote:
John Leslie wrote:
...
But more to the point, I think that in a lot of cases where
the IETF has done a good job, there has been running code
before the WG even started...
This perhaps explains where Stephen is coming from. Such
cases
On balance I think this experiment is safe to carry out, and therefore
probably should be carried out. There are a few comments below.
However, I would urge the IESG to update the page at
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/process-experiment.html, including current
status of the experiments mentioned, and
Hi Brian,
On 01/15/2013 10:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On balance I think this experiment is safe to carry out, and therefore
probably should be carried out. There are a few comments below.
However, I would urge the IESG to update the page at
See below...
On 15/01/2013 11:32, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Brian,
On 01/15/2013 10:55 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On balance I think this experiment is safe to carry out, and therefore
probably should be carried out. There are a few comments below.
However, I would urge the IESG to
Hiya,
On 01/15/2013 11:49 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I hate it when we end up legislating for common sense, so I
agree that for the experiment, this point could be put in the
wiki.
Great. I'm accumulating stuff like that in the changes
section (9.1) of the working version [1] for now, so
Martin Rex wrote:
John Leslie wrote:
I'm pretty darn uncomfortable _ever_ picking a fight with any
sitting AD, But I feel obligated to say this seems like a terrible
idea to me.
As a background, I'm a long-time believer in rough consensus for
Proposed Standard and running
Hi Ned,
at the end...
On 01/15/2013 10:31 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
Martin Rex wrote:
John Leslie wrote:
I'm pretty darn uncomfortable _ever_ picking a fight with any
sitting AD, But I feel obligated to say this seems like a terrible
idea to me.
As a background, I'm
Actually I think you make a couple of great points that ought be
mentioned in the draft about implementability. (No chance you'd
have time to craft a paragraph? If not, I'll try pinch text from
above:-) Now that you point it out like that, I'm irritated at
myself for not having included it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/11/2013 01:02 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for replying to this advise to secretariat thread and not to the
ietf-announce thread--I'm not subscribed to ietf-announce. I have three
comments, and regret that I have not followed all
Hi,
On Jan 14, 2013, at 10:08, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
I think that you underestimate the IETF community, who certainly know how to
see through all the FUD about the GPL. Sure it may be a bad idea to literally
copy 300 lines of GPL code in your code, but that does not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/14/2013 01:10 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Hi,
On Jan 14, 2013, at 10:08, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
I think that you underestimate the IETF community, who certainly know how
to see through all the FUD about the GPL. Sure it
Inline.
S.
On 1.14.2013 10:33 , Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/14/2013 01:10 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Hi,
On Jan 14, 2013, at 10:08, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
I think that you underestimate the IETF
Hiya,
On 01/14/2013 07:50 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
rant
...
I understand that this is a rant. And, I'm not ranting back, even if
tempted.
...
Yes, its tempting, but I'm going to resist since its irrelevant IMO.
...
/rant
I'm not at all sure what concrete suggestion you're making,
Hi Bernard,
I'm sorry, I have no idea what it is that you agree with.
Can you elaborate?
Thanks,
S.
On 01/12/2013 10:47 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
+1
[IAB Chair hat off].
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:25:38 +0100
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-farrell-ft-03.txt (A Fast-Track way to RFC
Perhaps my final comment on this. Also cutting the thread down to
something readable. Inline.
S.
On 1.14.2013 10:46 , Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
[...]
Yes, that's clearer. We're talking about two different continuums
(or continua:-), so either would work, and neither
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/14/2013 01:43 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Inline. S.
On 1.14.2013 10:33 , Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
On 01/14/2013 01:10 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Hi,
On Jan 14, 2013, at 10:08, Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org
Hi,
Please see inline.
Stephan
On 1.14.2013 11:31 , Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/14/2013 01:43 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Inline. S.
On 1.14.2013 10:33 , Marc Petit-Huguenin petit...@acm.org wrote:
On 01/14/2013 01:10
The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
draft-farrell-ft-03.txt as Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
Hi John,
On 01/14/2013 01:05 PM, John Leslie wrote:
The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
draft-farrell-ft-03.txt as Experimental RFC
The
I want to address one point that SM made:
Additionally, the experiment will only require issues raised
during these three stages to be addressed if they meet the
IESG's Discuss criteria.
Does this mean that a document does not have to represent consensus?
This bothered me too: by
On 11/01/2013 10:14, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider the following document: - 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with
Running Code' draft-farrell-ft-03.txt as Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
I have two concerns and comments:
- How will success or failure be measured? Number of appeal increases
or lesser amount? I have a concern that once this door is open, there
will be increase appeals and also apathy of outcomes. There should be
a statement of what sort of problems or issues
Hi again John,
Substantive response this time...
On 01/14/2013 01:05 PM, John Leslie wrote:
The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
Hi Olafur,
On 01/14/2013 04:39 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
On 11/01/2013 10:14, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider the following document: - 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with
Running Code' draft-farrell-ft-03.txt as Experimental RFC
The
Hi Hector,
On 01/14/2013 05:05 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
I have two concerns and comments:
- How will success or failure be measured? Number of appeal increases
or lesser amount? I have a concern that once this door is open, there
will be increase appeals and also apathy of outcomes.
Stephen did well to respond quickly!
I will respond to most of his comments in private email, rather than
increase the noise-level on the ietf list. But a couple of points
deserve a better community understanding...
Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
...
Well WGLC isn't part
John Leslie wrote:
I'm pretty darn uncomfortable _ever_ picking a fight with any
sitting AD, But I feel obligated to say this seems like a terrible
idea to me.
As a background, I'm a long-time believer in rough consensus for
Proposed Standard and running code for advancement along
Hiya,
On 01/14/2013 06:52 PM, John Leslie wrote:
Stephen did well to respond quickly!
Responsive with dodgy ideas - sounds like me:-)
I will respond to most of his comments in private email, rather than
increase the noise-level on the ietf list. But a couple of points
deserve a
Hi Martin,
On 01/14/2013 08:32 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
John Leslie wrote:
I'm pretty darn uncomfortable _ever_ picking a fight with any
sitting AD, But I feel obligated to say this seems like a terrible
idea to me.
As a background, I'm a long-time believer in rough consensus for
Hi Stephen,
On 14/01/2013 13:02, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Olafur,
On 01/14/2013 04:39 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
I have experience in process like this, as my WG DNSEXT has required
multiple implementations and inter-op testing before advancing before
advancing documents that make
Hi Olafur,
Thanks for the offer of text. Looking forward to getting that.
Just on this one though...
On 01/14/2013 10:29 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
That's also sort of like the point Stefan W. raised. And he
suggested:
If the source code has been developed
John Leslie wrote:
...
But more to the point, I think that in a lot of cases where
the IETF has done a good job, there has been running code
before the WG even started...
This perhaps explains where Stephen is coming from. Such
cases do exist; and it is arguable that the process
Hi,
Please see inline.
Stephan
On 1.12.2013 10:32 , Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote:
Hiya,
On 01/11/2013 09:02 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
[...]
Still, there is one reference that worries me, and that is the
reference
to GPLv3 code as an extreme in section 2.1. Yes, the GPL
Full agreement with Stephan.
Lars
On Jan 11, 2013, at 22:02, Stephan Wenger st...@stewe.org wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for replying to this advise to secretariat thread and not to the
ietf-announce thread--I'm not subscribed to ietf-announce.
I have three comments, and regret that I have not
Hiya,
On 01/11/2013 09:02 PM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for replying to this advise to secretariat thread and not to the
ietf-announce thread--I'm not subscribed to ietf-announce.
I have three comments, and regret that I have not followed all of the
discussions regarding this draft
Hiya,
So I think the actions arising are:
- consider whether to have a not before IETF meetings restriction
and make this an 18 month experiment
- maybe remove the text about -bis RFCs. (I slightly prefer it as-is
fwiw, but let's see if we get more input)
Let me know if that's wrong.
+1
[IAB Chair hat off].
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:25:38 +0100
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-farrell-ft-03.txt (A Fast-Track way to RFC
with Running Code) to Experimental RFC
From: abdussalambar...@gmail.com
To: s...@resistor.net
CC: ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Hi SM,
I totally
Hi Alexa,
Please be aware of this document that has just entered a four-week IETF last
call. The document describes a proposed IETF process experiment under the rules
of RFC 3933.
The proposed experiment calls on the IETF Secretariat to take specific actions
under certain circumstances in corner
At 07:14 11-01-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
draft-farrell-ft-03.txt as Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
Hiya,
On 01/11/2013 07:33 PM, SM wrote:
At 07:14 11-01-2013, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
draft-farrell-ft-03.txt as Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make
Hi,
Sorry for replying to this advise to secretariat thread and not to the
ietf-announce thread--I'm not subscribed to ietf-announce.
I have three comments, and regret that I have not followed all of the
discussions regarding this draft before, so please advise if those
comments have already been
Hi SM,
I totally agree with your comments and suggestions, the draft SHOULD
mention the important clarifications and the answers to SM's
questions. This is an important draft and SHUOLD be clear about such
important details in sections, why it ignores them without refering to
informative
Hi Stephen,
At 12:36 11-01-2013, Stephen Farrell wrote:
You mean rough consensus of the IETF I guess? Good question.
No, I mean consensus as that's also part what is gauged during a Last Call.
First, WG rough consensus is formally unaffected. As is IESG
review. And if IETF LC comments are
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'A Fast-Track way to RFC with Running Code'
draft-farrell-ft-03.txt as Experimental RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please
89 matches
Mail list logo
