Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 13/08/2012 04:03, Michael StJohns wrote: ... We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected a team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks. Efficiency suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it. At the risk of being at the top of the next Narten list, I can't help adding that in the matter of liaison with other SDOs, our process formally states that the IAB acts as representative of the interests of the IETF and the Internet Society. (See the same clause of BCP 39 that I cited yesterday.) Brian
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Hi Dave, I agree that procedure of ietf processes should be respected and followed by all, and/or community should understand such difference in process before asked its opinion. I hope your comments will be considered by IETF and IAB in the future. thanking you for your comments, AB -- From: Dave Crocker dcrocker at bbiw.net To: Barry Leiba barryleiba at computer.org Cc: IAB iab at iab.org, IETF ietf at ietf.org Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:50:10 -0700 Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls? When did the community approve that change in process? No he didn't: Please send strong objections... This asserts a forceful bias against general comments and criticisms by establishing a very high threshhold for relevance. While no, no one is prevented from other kinds of postings, the bias is nonetheless established. Note that he didn't ask for support, although explicit support statements are exactly what is required for IETF consensus calls, absent a history to justify the kind of default yes assumption made in the announcement. We don't have any such documented history for this effort. Would any of us guess that the community would support the document? Sure. But guessing isn't the point. That folks have chosen to ignore the stricture specified in the announcement and to post public support shows how deeply ingrained our model is. And, yeah, enough such postings overwhelm problems with the last call wording... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
RE: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
+1 Well said Mike. For what its worth I completely and unconditionally support the signing of the document on behalf of the entire IETF community. This support is personal and does not represent any official position of the SIP Forum its full members or its board. But if we were asked . It is totally clear to me that the WCIT process represents a substantive threat to the multistake holder process in standards development that has made the IETF and the Internet work. What is horrifying to me as well is this idea of mandatory ITU based protocol certification testing. The ITU has ZERO business imposing this requirement on nation states. Our Industry deals with compliance and certification testing in its own way without government sanctioned intervention. Weve seen this class of threat before multiple times over the past decade. Hopefully this will pass but it will certainly come up again and again. Vigilance Vigilance. Though our focus has been pure engineering we cannot ignore the forces building up to demand a return to some form of intergovernmental control of global communications. We won! Now the forces of darkness say .. well if its going to deal with SIP/IMS telephony ( voice ) well it has to be regulated! Right ..!! Wrong .. Granted the European PTTs are not helping here with totally absurd ideas about abandoning the privately negotiated transit peering model with some form of data sender pays abomination because they cant figure out their business models. Now they first had a Whine and Cheese party in Brussels , but getting no satisfaction there they now go to the UN to support their untenable position. Richard Shockey Shockey Consulting Chairman of the Board of Directors SIP Forum PSTN Mobile: +1 703.593.2683 mailto:richard(at)shockey.us skype-linkedin-facebook: rshockey101 http//www.sipforum.org From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael StJohns Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 11:03 PM To: Glen Zorn; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Glen and others - I wanted to go back and comment on the assertion that Glen made that the IETF and IAB chairs do not 'represent' [him] or any one other than themselves. I believe he is correct with respect to himself, and incorrect with respect to the IETF. I agree the IETF is not a representative democracy, the IESG and IAB (and not the IETF) are probably best described as electoral meritocracies. We randomly select electors from a qualified pool which self-selects mostly from the set of all participants which in turn selects the IESG and the IAB from that set of all participants. I'm pretty sure that Carsten was using elect to describe that process. While the IESG and IAB may not speak for the IETF participants, they de facto and de jure do speak for the IETF. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. [CF the various RFCs detailing the responsibilities and duties of the IESG, IAB and their respective chairs, the RFCs detailing the standards process, and the various liaison's that have been arranged over the years.] I've noted over the years that the constituency of IETF participants tends to have bouts with BSDS - back seat driver syndrome, and this is mostly not helpful. We (referring to the broad set of IETF participants going back 25+ years) have over time evolved and agreed upon various ways of moving forward for generally accepted values of forward. Those ways include having granted the IESG the power to set the standards agenda, the IAB to negotiate and approve liaison agreements with standards bodies, the IESG to ultimately approve the standards, and the IESG, IETF Chair and IAB chair to declare a perception of consensus. We (the participants) have reserved to ourselves the rights jointly and severally to comment on all of the above, to be heard on even items delegated to the IESG and IAB and at times to carp and cavil on every single point of order. Some of this is good for the process. But we go too far way too often. In this case, the IAB, IESG and their respective chairs are doing the jobs we've asked them to do. Russ, correctly I believe, asked for objections to the issuance of such statement, he didn't ask for consensus. I also believe it would have been well within the current job description of the IAB and IETF Chairs to just go ahead and sign the thing. I think it comes down to this: If you (an IETF participant) have an objection to the statement, make it here. If you have an objection to the process in general then - form your objections, write an ID, and socialize what you want changed. If consensus shows you correct, it will apply down the line. If you have a belief that the process has been violated, it's appropriate to make that point, but give details rather than vague intimations. If you have an objection related to the members of the IESG or IAB performance, make them
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 20:49 -0700, SM wrote: ... At 19:06 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote: any one other than themselves. If support by IETF members at-large is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a much better idea much less deceptive. RFCs, for example RFC 1984, have been used for such statements. Sorry, I don't get your point. The referenced RFC says The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), the bodies which oversee architecture and standards for the Internet, are concerned by the need for increased protection of international commercial transactions on the Internet, and by the need to offer all Internet users an adequate degree of privacy. Presumably, the IAB IESG came to this concern through consensus and the document expresses the consensus (along with the rather typical sense of exaggerated self-importance ;-)) of those bodies. It pointedly does not claim to represent the opinion of the entire IETF, but neither does the document under discussion (unless the royal usage of we is intended) and that's how it should be. Regards, -sm attachment: face-wink.png
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Hi Glen, At 23:13 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote: Sorry, I don't get your point. The referenced RFC says It was the Spring of 1995. The place was known as Danvers. That meeting is remembered because of the Danvers Doctrine. Presumably, the IAB IESG came to this concern through consensus and the document expresses the consensus (along with the rather typical sense of exaggerated self- Yes. importance ;-) ) of those bodies. It pointedly does not claim to represent the opinion of the entire IETF, but neither does the document under discussion (unless the royal usage of we is intended) and that's how it should be. Over the years the IAB and IETF have expressed a joint opinion on an issue through a RFC.That RFC is one of the significant ones as it dealt with the question of export grade security which was on the political agenda of the day. Nowadays the IETF uses BCPs to express IETF Consensus. Regards, -sm attachment: 3759cb5c.jpg
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's not being used. Something quite different is being used. I'm not so sure. It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug. He asked for comments. - The IETF Chair announced updated text on 4 Aug, based on comments received. - The IETF Chair made a last call on 10 Aug, running through 24 Aug, noting that three organizations are approving this text (and that one has already). He asked for objections. - A discussion (this) ensued, which has resulted in a great deal of support for the signing, no objections to the document, and two objections on process grounds. I presume that the IETF Chair will evaluate rough consensus on or after 24 Aug. As I see it now, consensus appears to be strongly in favour of their signing it, with a valid process objection that has to be addressed. By way of addressing that, this IETF participant thinks that our consensus process has essentially been followed. Text was publicly posted, comments were incorporated, a last call was issued, and responses are being considered. In the end, we seem likely to have IETF consensus that the IAB Chair and the IETF Chair sign the document. The parts that are not entirely as usual are (1) that the text was publicly posted, but not in an Internet Draft, and (2) that the community's ability to tweak the text has been limited. That said, both of those aspects are part of the public last call, and they have gotten very limited objection. Can you tell us where the above process fails in representing the rough consensus of the IETF community, with respect to how we normally express such consensus? Can you tell us how what we're doing here is quite different to our usual process (that is, quite different, as opposed to very slightly different, with the difference having been explained and due to the requirements of external interactions)? Barry
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 8/12/2012 8:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug. Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls? When did the community approve that change in process? He asked for comments. No he didn't: Please send strong objections... This asserts a forceful bias against general comments and criticisms by establishing a very high threshhold for relevance. While no, no one is prevented from other kinds of postings, the bias is nonetheless established. - A discussion (this) ensued, which has resulted in a great deal of support for the signing, no objections to the document, and two objections on process grounds. Note that he didn't ask for support, although explicit support statements are exactly what is required for IETF consensus calls, absent a history to justify the kind of default yes assumption made in the announcement. We don't have any such documented history for this effort. Would any of us guess that the community would support the document? Sure. But guessing isn't the point. That folks have chosen to ignore the stricture specified in the announcement and to post public support shows how deeply ingrained our model is. And, yeah, enough such postings overwhelm problems with the last call wording... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug. Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls? 1 Aug to 24 Aug strikes me as nearly four weeks, not two. If you want to propose that Russ add four more days, I'm sure your suggestion would be considered. You don't appear to be suggesting anything constructive, though. He asked for comments. No he didn't: He, being the IAB Chair on 1 Aug, as I said in my message, did: The IAB, IESG, IEEE-SA and W3C have been developing an “Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm”. Comments may be sent to i...@iab.org. I any case, I recommend that you make specific, constructive suggestions about what we *should* do at this point. Vague criticism that we're not doing it right are much less helpful, don't you think? Barry
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 8/12/2012 9:02 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft. Apart from that, we seem to be doing the right thing: - The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug. Two weeks is normal process for spontaneous consensus calls? 1 Aug to 24 Aug strikes me as nearly four weeks, not two. If you want to propose that Russ add four more days, I'm sure your suggestion would be considered. You don't appear to be suggesting anything constructive, though. 1. You think 3 weeks is nearly 4? 2. The Last Call was issued on 10 August, not 1 August. Again, what's happening here is a form of 'let's ignore IETF process because this is such a wonderful cause'. It is, indeed, a wonderful cause, but I don't recall our establishing rules that are to be applied only when we feel like it, or in varied manner that our management decides is sufficient. He asked for comments. No he didn't: He, being the IAB Chair on 1 Aug, as I said in my message, did: The IAB, IESG, IEEE-SA and W3C have been developing an “Affirmation of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm”. Comments may be sent to i...@iab.org. It's always a bit disconcerting to see an AD misinterpret process details this way, especially when it requires changing the reference to something that wasn't a Last Call. I any case, I recommend that you make specific, constructive suggestions about what we *should* do at this point. Vague criticism that we're not doing it right are much less helpful, don't you think? sigh. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Dave If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than taking steps to avoid Internet governance being transferred by government decree to a secretive agency of the UN that runs by government majority. Is that a correct assessments of your priorities? Stewart
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 12, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than taking steps to avoid Internet governance being transferred by government decree to a secretive agency of the UN that runs by government majority. Is that a correct assessments of your priorities? Another possibility is that Dave simply wanted to start yet another process discussion, and he thought this was the appropriate time and thread for it. A corollary to Hanlon's razor is never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by bureaucracy. --Paul Hoffman, whose support for the proposal remains positive
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 12, 2012, at 19:51, Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com wrote: If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than taking steps to avoid Internet governance being transferred by government decree to a secretive agency of the UN that runs by government majority. That is the question that is not clear to me either. I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one. We should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities that include the IETF, with an element of negotiation, even compromise, and so on. This is a case where leadership is actually required, and I don't think that process is an established one at all. We do know how to run liaisons, which is probably the closest model to adhere to. We know why we have handed the keys to this to the IAB. (The present document is not prescriptive anyway, it is descriptive, and the IETF chair in concert with the IAB chair should be able to act on this level after a modicum of consultation.) If the process question was actually raised to derail the signing of the current document, my reaction would be quite similar to Stewart's. As I said before, sometimes you have to act. Grüße, Carsten
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 12, 2012, at 10:51 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: Dave If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than taking steps to avoid Internet governance being transferred by government decree to a secretive agency of the UN that runs by government majority. Is that a correct assessments of your priorities? Stewart Personally I do not feel the tone of this message is most appropriate in this ongoing discussion. Lixia
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
At 10:51 12-08-2012, Stewart Bryant wrote: If I interpret what you seem to be saying, it is that you care more for the micro-observance of IETF protocol, than taking steps to avoid Internet governance being transferred by government decree to a secretive agency of the UN that runs by government majority. Several hours ago the IAB approved collaboration guidelines with a secretive agency of the UN which is run by government majority. The US has already stated that it will not support proposals that would increase the exercise of control over Internet governance or content ( http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/telecom/196031.htm ). Internet governance is somewhat like political prostitution ( http://political-prostitution.com/ ). If the governments of the world want to fight about that for the benefit of humanity, it is their choice. I don't see why the IETF has to get into a fight about Internet governance. It is ok if the IETF Chair wants an affirmation supported by various SDOs to thrust under the nose of delegates in November. I understand that in some venues the only way to be heard is to make pompous speeches. At 14:49 12-08-2012, Carsten Bormann wrote: I do believe the process question is an absolutely useful one. We should have a process that is able to handle multilateral activities that include the IETF, with an element of negotiation, even compromise, and so on. This is a case where leadership is actually required, and I don't think that process is an established one at all. We do know how to The IAB Charter allows it to handle multilateral activities. If the process question was actually raised to derail the signing of the current document, my reaction would be quite similar to Stewart's. A person expects people to behave as sheep if the person mentions collective empowerment and doesn't want anyone to raise questions. The person could also smile, nod and ignore the questions as the sheep won't pursue the matter. If a person wanted to derail the signing of the current document the person would only delay the outcome by about a month. It would be somewhat entertaining as the IAB has already taken a vote on the matter. Please do not ask me to elaborate on how this might be done. As I said before, sometimes you have to act. And play god. :-) The following are selected quotes: Cooperation. Respectful cooperation between standards organizations, whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity, processes, and intellectual property rules of the others. The IETF should not be disrespectful by making any comments about the ITU which may have a negative connotation. :-) Collective empowerment. Commitment by affirming standards organizations and their participants to collective empowerment by striving for standards that: The affirmation is not a commitment taken by IETF participants. The IESG knows the path to take if it would like to get such a commitment. Regards, -sm
Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Glen and others - I wanted to go back and comment on the assertion that Glen made that the IETF and IAB chairs do not 'represent' [him] or any one other than themselves. I believe he is correct with respect to himself, and incorrect with respect to the IETF. I agree the IETF is not a representative democracy, the IESG and IAB (and not the IETF) are probably best described as electoral meritocracies. We randomly select electors from a qualified pool which self-selects mostly from the set of all participants which in turn selects the IESG and the IAB from that set of all participants. I'm pretty sure that Carsten was using elect to describe that process. While the IESG and IAB may not speak for the IETF participants, they de facto and de jure do speak for the IETF. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. [CF the various RFCs detailing the responsibilities and duties of the IESG, IAB and their respective chairs, the RFCs detailing the standards process, and the various liaison's that have been arranged over the years.] I've noted over the years that the constituency of IETF participants tends to have bouts with BSDS - back seat driver syndrome, and this is mostly not helpful. We (referring to the broad set of IETF participants going back 25+ years) have over time evolved and agreed upon various ways of moving forward for generally accepted values of forward. Those ways include having granted the IESG the power to set the standards agenda, the IAB to negotiate and approve liaison agreements with standards bodies, the IESG to ultimately approve the standards, and the IESG, IETF Chair and IAB chair to declare a perception of consensus. We (the participants) have reserved to ourselves the rights jointly and severally to comment on all of the above, to be heard on even items delegated to the IESG and IAB and at times to carp and cavil on every single point of order. Some of this is good for the process. But we go too far way too often. In this case, the IAB, IESG and their respective chairs are doing the jobs we've asked them to do. Russ, correctly I believe, asked for objections to the issuance of such statement, he didn't ask for consensus. I also believe it would have been well within the current job description of the IAB and IETF Chairs to just go ahead and sign the thing. I think it comes down to this: If you (an IETF participant) have an objection to the statement, make it here. If you have an objection to the process in general then - form your objections, write an ID, and socialize what you want changed. If consensus shows you correct, it will apply down the line. If you have a belief that the process has been violated, it's appropriate to make that point, but give details rather than vague intimations. If you have an objection related to the members of the IESG or IAB performance, make them to the Nomcom or offer yourself as a candidate if you think you can do better or both. We've - collectively, through process established over many years - selected a team of our colleagues to perform a circumscribed set of tasks. Efficiency suggests we should mostly stand back and let them get on with it. Mike At 10:06 PM 8/11/2012, Glen Zorn wrote: On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 17:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker mailto:d...@dcrocker.netd...@dcrocker.net wrote: consensus-oriented process Sometimes, though, you have to act. While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer. Grüße, Carsten *) Well there was a call for comments, and it already supplied the first such set of epsilons. That may have to do when time is of the essence. (That's also what you choose your leadership for. If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ :-) Did the IETF morph into a representative democracy while I was sleeping? Last time I checked, Russ was the chair of a committee of managers, chosen by a random selection of proles who may or may not have taken the opinions of others into account in that selection. He was not elected, nor does he speak for the IETF; ditto for Bernard. If they wish to sign this statement (with which I, by and large, agree, BTW), that's fine. If they wish to list all their titles (IETF-bestowed otherwise), degrees, etc., that's fine, too, but not if the intent is to imply that they somehow represent me or any one other than themselves. If support by IETF members at-large is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a much better idea much less deceptive.
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document. +1 (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.) Lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
+1 Alkuperäinen viesti Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com Vastaanottaja: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com Kopio: IAB i...@iab.org,IETF ietf@ietf.org On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:55, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote: I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing document. +1 (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.) Lars
Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com ... (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.) The for the IRTF underscores a possible concern in the current situation. The perception will certainly be that the IAB and IETF chairs' signature do represent the support of the IETF. But we are a consensus-oriented group and we have not had anything that even hints at a consensus-oriented process to authorize that representation. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: consensus-oriented process Sometimes, though, you have to act. While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer. Grüße, Carsten *) Well there was a call for comments, and it already supplied the first such set of epsilons. That may have to do when time is of the essence. (That's also what you choose your leadership for. If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ :-)
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: consensus-oriented process Sometimes, though, you have to act. While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer. I wasn't commenting on document editing. (It actually needs a serious editing pass, but I understand that the current situation mitigates against pursuing that.) My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's not being used. Something quite different is being used. I'm not arguing against the document, but merely noting that an implication of IETF community support is going to be present, but in the absence of our having followed the process that makes that (formally) correct. Bureaucracy sucks. It's a hassle. It's always more appealing to just do whatever we feel like that feels reasonable because we have good intent. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 11/08/2012 15:41, Dave Crocker wrote: Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com ... (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.) The for the IRTF underscores a possible concern in the current situation. The perception will certainly be that the IAB and IETF chairs' signature do represent the support of the IETF. But we are a consensus-oriented group and we have not had anything that even hints at a consensus-oriented process to authorize that representation. Dave, I wasn't in Vancouver, nor even listening to the audio stream, so I can't comment on what happened there. However, the discussion here (e.g. on the ITU-T Dubai Meeting thread) and the previous opportunity to comment on the proposed statement, which has resulted in changes, strikes me as an open discussion of the kind we expect in the IETF. When the goal is agreed wording between several organisations, and it seems clear that the two chairs are representing the ethos of the IETF in the discussion, I don't see how we can reasonably ask for more in the time available. Brian
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 8/11/2012 8:13 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: consensus-oriented process Sometimes, though, you have to act. While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer. I wasn't commenting on document editing. (It actually needs a serious editing pass, but I understand that the current situation mitigates against pursuing that.) My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's not being used. Something quite different is being used. I'm not arguing against the document, but merely noting that an implication of IETF community support is going to be present, but in the absence of our having followed the process that makes that (formally) correct. Bureaucracy sucks. It's a hassle. It's always more appealing to just do whatever we feel like that feels reasonable because we have good intent. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: [MARKETING] Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On 11/08/2012 16:20, Brian E Carpenter wrote: When the goal is agreed wording between several organisations, and it seems clear that the two chairs are representing the ethos of the IETF in the discussion, I don't see how we can reasonably ask for more in the time available. Brian +1 Stewart -- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
Re: VS: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 07:41 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: Aihe: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm Lähettäjä: Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com ... (I'd even co-sign for the IRTF, but I think that isn't really appropriate in this case.) The for the IRTF underscores a possible concern in the current situation. The perception will certainly be that the IAB and IETF chairs' signature do represent the support of the IETF. But we are a consensus-oriented group and we have not had anything that even hints at a consensus-oriented process to authorize that representation. My thoughts exactly. d/
Re: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
On Sat, 2012-08-11 at 17:13 +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Aug 11, 2012, at 16:41, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: consensus-oriented process Sometimes, though, you have to act. While a consensus-oriented process*) document could certainly be used to improve (or deteriorate) the document by a couple more epsilons, I agree with Randy Bush: Signing it now is a no-brainer. Grüße, Carsten *) Well there was a call for comments, and it already supplied the first such set of epsilons. That may have to do when time is of the essence. (That's also what you choose your leadership for. If we don't like the outcome, we can always decide not to re-elect Russ :-) Did the IETF morph into a representative democracy while I was sleeping? Last time I checked, Russ was the chair of a committee of managers, chosen by a random selection of proles who may or may not have taken the opinions of others into account in that selection. He was not elected, nor does he speak for the IETF; ditto for Bernard. If they wish to sign this statement (with which I, by and large, agree, BTW), that's fine. If they wish to list all their titles (IETF-bestowed otherwise), degrees, etc., that's fine, too, but not if the intent is to imply that they somehow represent me or any one other than themselves. If support by IETF members at-large is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a much better idea much less deceptive.
Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
At 08:20 11-08-2012, Dave Crocker wrote: My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's not being used. Something quite different is being used. I'm not arguing against the document, but merely noting that an implication of IETF community support is going to be present, but in the absence of our having followed the process that makes that (formally) correct. In a message at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74519.html the IETF Chair mentioned that: The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the iab at iab.org and the ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-24. The subject line of that message says Last Call. The wording used (send strong objections) is uncommon. The period for accepting comments is two weeks. There has been comments and some noise. Neither the IETF Chair nor the three Area Directors who commented attempted to stifle the noise. In some other community you can expect a reminder about AUP ( http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2012-August/025789.html ). Recognising that moral issues are fundamental to the utility and success of protocols designed within the IETF, and that simply making a wishy-washy liberal-minded statement does not necessarily provide adequate guarantees of a correct and proper outcome for society, the IETF proposes to issue a press release. Bureaucracy sucks. It's a hassle. It's always more appealing to just do whatever we feel like that feels reasonable because we have good intent. Yes. At 19:06 11-08-2012, Glen Zorn wrote: any one other than themselves. If support by IETF members at-large is to be signified, then an online petition of some sort would be a much better idea much less deceptive. RFCs, for example RFC 1984, have been used for such statements. Regards, -sm
