Re: Working Group chartering
Burger, Eric wrote: IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea. We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the idea will work. We produce lots of half-baked documents with little basis in working code. Then folks try implementing what's been spec'ed, find it doesn't work, but then find a ton of resistance to change, because the specs are three years old and we don't want to break draft-mumble-05 implementations. I completely agree with you. I wonder if we are in the minority opinion? Standardize stuff that already works -- what a concept. When we see a proposal without any running code to back it up, we should be asking: If this is so good, then why aren't you using it yourself? If something is an idea, let's make it politically acceptable for the work to be done in the I*R*TF first. I don't care how the technology gets developed. IRTF, vendors, universities, whatever. Show us running code that's reasonably close to what you want to standardize. Let's get feedback from people who have used the technology, too. Yes, I agree that the process should be fuzzy - the AD should be able to figure out if something is likely to work in the real world. However, building a work group out of an idea, rather than somewhat working code or a demonstration framework, should be the exception, rather than the rule. Agreed, but I'm no fan of more process rules. Area Directors who want to produce successful standards will know how to make this decision. ADs have to be tough enough to say Come back when you've done more work. Andy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:13 PM To: Jeffrey Hutzelman Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Working Group chartering [snip] And here is where we have the major disconnect. Working groups start from a wide variety of places. Some start with an idea. Some with a detailed proposal. Some with a detailed specification and some with existing and deployed technology. When a working group starts, it must make the strategic decision about how much prior work to preserve, versus how much new work to encourage or require. [snip] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Working Group chartering
IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea. ... Standardize stuff that already works -- what a concept. ... I don't care how the technology gets developed. IRTF, vendors, universities, whatever. The current model in the IETF appears to be: Your running code does suggest that this is worth pursuing. So, now let's start all over, with no real concern for preserving that work and develop a fresh wish-list of features. My suggestion is that we stop doing that, instead using the core of workers who are committed to delivering that running code, to define the requirements. The community then gets to review potential problems with that work. Pseudo-problems, such as it should do more things and I can't give you any specifics, but there might be problems are out of bounds. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Working Group chartering
IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea. ... Standardize stuff that already works -- what a concept. ... I don't care how the technology gets developed. IRTF, vendors, universities, whatever. The current model in the IETF appears to be: Your running code does suggest that this is worth pursuing. So, now let's start all over, with no real concern for preserving that work and develop a fresh wish-list of features. My suggestion is that we stop doing that, instead using the core of workers who are committed to delivering that running code, to define the requirements. The community then gets to review potential problems with that work. Pseudo-problems, such as it should do more things and I can't give you any specifics, but there might be problems are out of bounds. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Working Group chartering
Eric, --- [SNIP --- -- IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on -- an idea. We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the -- idea will work. We produce lots of half-baked documents with -- little basis in working code. Then folks try implementing -- what's been spec'ed, find it doesn't work, but then find a ton -- of resistance to change, because the specs are three years old -- and we don't want to break draft-mumble-05 implementations. -- -- If something is an idea, let's make it politically acceptable -- for the work to be done in the I*R*TF first. -- --- [SNIP] --- I think this is a gross mischaraterization of current practice in the IETF generally - however many exceptions we might find. Usually - at least among those of us that work for a living - we would not bring something to the IETF unless we were already in the process of implementing it and we have been encouraged by our employers (or - indirectly - by our customers) to bring it to the IETF. When people bring ideas to the IETF that seem like a good thing but aren't practical or implementable at the current time, they are usually encouraged to take those ideas to the IRTF. -- Eric ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Working Group chartering
Normally, I would agree, but in one area in particular where I'm active, RAI, I've seen it all. There has been a ton of work that was interesting and nice to have. Also, I am a big proponent of microeconomics, which would have rational actors only put forth and push stuff clearly needed for products. HOWEVER, in the highest IETF fashion, I've regularly seen multiple folks from the same company arguing against each other in the working groups. I would have much more appreciated their working out their differences at home and bring in their 'corporate' position :) Likewise, often I see folks bring something that needs to be solved to the IETF. This can generate lots of interest, especially if the person with the problem is a customer. However, that still doesn't mean the solution space is in the realm of the IETF. -Original Message- From: Gray, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:03 PM To: Burger, Eric Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Working Group chartering Eric, --- [SNIP --- -- IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on -- an idea. We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the -- idea will work. We produce lots of half-baked documents with -- little basis in working code. Then folks try implementing -- what's been spec'ed, find it doesn't work, but then find a ton -- of resistance to change, because the specs are three years old -- and we don't want to break draft-mumble-05 implementations. -- -- If something is an idea, let's make it politically acceptable -- for the work to be done in the I*R*TF first. -- --- [SNIP] --- I think this is a gross mischaraterization of current practice in the IETF generally - however many exceptions we might find. Usually - at least among those of us that work for a living - we would not bring something to the IETF unless we were already in the process of implementing it and we have been encouraged by our employers (or - indirectly - by our customers) to bring it to the IETF. When people bring ideas to the IETF that seem like a good thing but aren't practical or implementable at the current time, they are usually encouraged to take those ideas to the IRTF. -- Eric ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Working Group chartering
On 1/10/06 12:55 PM, Burger, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Normally, I would agree, but in one area in particular where I'm active, RAI, I've seen it all. There has been a ton of work that was interesting and nice to have. I'm going to hazard a guess here and suggest that that area has more interaction with/more interdependencies with other standards bodies, where it's more typical to be very, very top-down. In a number of cases those bodies have said We need an internet protocol that does x; the IETF is the organization that standardizes internet protocols so we'll send the work there. To the extent that the other option is to have other bodies standardizing internet protocols I expect that's actually somewhat desirable. If the alternative were that the work went on hold until something had something that was technically acceptable and reasonably mature, what would happen outside the IETF? Would those other bodies go along (even though that's not how they work, themselves) or would they start producing more internet protocols? On the upside, one considerable benefit to the way the IETF does its work, I think, is that it's usually pretty difficult to do the kind of horse trading (I'll agree to your unnecessary feature if you'll agree to my unnecessary feature) that sometimes takes place elsewhere. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Working Group chartering
--On tirsdag, januar 10, 2006 12:26:22 -0600 James M. Polk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:55 PM 1/10/2006 -0500, Burger, Eric wrote: Also, I am a big proponent of microeconomics, which would have rational actors only put forth and push stuff clearly needed for products. HOWEVER, in the highest IETF fashion, I've regularly seen multiple folks from the same company arguing against each other in the working groups. Now, which company does this sound like? I would have much more appreciated their working out their differences at home and bring in their 'corporate' position :) I do hope you're not even remotely serious with this suggestion... Seconding James.. a requirement to have unanimous intra-company signoff on anything presented to the IETF would be the single quickest way to reduce the contributions to the IETF from the companies I've been involved in we are all individuals, in addition to its other properties, is a way to let me say things (like this message) in public WITHOUT having to check with my representative or my coordinating committee before sending it. If my company says why did you say stupid thing, I can always say it was my personal contribution, you don't have to take the blame for it. Has worked for me so far ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Working Group chartering
IMHO, *way* too many I*E*TF work groups get chartered based on an idea. We then spend tons of resources on figuring out if the idea will work. We produce lots of half-baked documents with little basis in working code. Then folks try implementing what's been spec'ed, find it doesn't work, but then find a ton of resistance to change, because the specs are three years old and we don't want to break draft-mumble-05 implementations. If something is an idea, let's make it politically acceptable for the work to be done in the I*R*TF first. Yes, I agree that the process should be fuzzy - the AD should be able to figure out if something is likely to work in the real world. However, building a work group out of an idea, rather than somewhat working code or a demonstration framework, should be the exception, rather than the rule. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:13 PM To: Jeffrey Hutzelman Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Working Group chartering [snip] And here is where we have the major disconnect. Working groups start from a wide variety of places. Some start with an idea. Some with a detailed proposal. Some with a detailed specification and some with existing and deployed technology. When a working group starts, it must make the strategic decision about how much prior work to preserve, versus how much new work to encourage or require. [snip] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
