Re: allowable questions (was Re www...)

[Dave Crocker]

At 02:00 PM 4/8/2001, James P. Salsman wrote:
>I tried private emails and phone calls,
>prior to my working group question, which was only a footnote to a longer
>list of requested solutions which still seem like entirely constructive
>critisism to me.

This appears to be the core of the problem.  You appear to believe that 
because you were not successful at pursuing a company/product line of 
discussion with the individual, privately, that you self-entitled to 
intrude on a public standards forum -- one that, for that matter, has 
explicit rules against such lines of discussion -- to get some attention.

Now, the only other question is whether the rest of us are going to let 
this matter drop quickly and completely, or whether we will permit your 
exercise in selfishness to distract us further...

d/


--
Dave Crocker   
Brandenburg InternetWorking   
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wildgrube-gnp-01.txt

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, April 09, 2001 10:11 AM +0700 "Rahmat M.
Samik-Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> That was the odd one out, but I'm getting 404 Not found for
>> other recently-announced drafts. Perhaps uploading before
>> announcing would be good.
> 
> Simple Question: 
> 
>What should I do if I could not find a internet draft that 
>was announced as an I-D action in IETF-Announce?

Wait 24 hours and try again before doing anything else, based on
the experience that some of the shadows are a bit slow in
updating.  Or try www.ietf.org directly, being sure  that you are
not going through any interception proxies or other intermediate
caches.

  john

Re: allowable questions (was Re www...)

[ned . freed]

> Please help me understand your reasoning:

> > We participate in the IETF as individuals, not as corporate represenatives.
> > As such, asking about [company] product plans on the WG mailing is
> > completely and totally inappropriate.

> Are you really trying to discourage asking questions of self-selected
> designated experts?

Questions about WG standards, the development of WG standards, or other WG
activities are of course appropriate to a WG mailing list.

> Suppose XYZ corporation makes popular software for IP checksums, but
> their algorithms only work for packet lengths less than 20.  If Robin Doe
> works for XYZ corporation and has voluntarily become an official of
> the checksum working group, and that working group has published
> documents clearly indicating that checksum algorithms must be able to
> accomodate packets of at least size 40, why is it not appropriate to
> ask Robin whether XYZ corporation intends to support the requirement?

First of all, what you said on the WG mailing list and what you describe above
aren't exactly comparable. On the WG mailing list you asked about whether or
not a particular company has plans to enhance a specific piece of commercial
hardware in a very specific way. That's quite different from asking someone
whether or not their company generally intends to support some standard.

While I'd say it isn't something to be widely encouraged, as a practical matter
is it often useful to take stock of how widely a given standard will be
supported commercially, if only to assess whether or not the standards activity
is close to the mark. Had you simply done that I would not have said anything.

Again I must point out that people participate in the IETF as individuals, not
as corporate representatives. You sent a message that asked the chair of a WG
about his company's plans to enhance a commercial product. Not only does this
have nothing to do with standards development or any other WG activity, it
drags the chair's other role as a commercial software developer into the fray
and thereby puts him in a fairly awkward position. Being a WG chair is hard
enough as it is; we should try to avoid making it any harder.

We do have specific rules about intellectual property disclosures being a
prerequisite to IETF participation. And these apply to all participants, not
just WG chairs. But this doesn't extend to having to disclose of product plans.
If that were the case practically nobody would be able to participate in the
IETF process.

> Your implication that there should be a prior restraint on allowable
> questions is not only at odds with interpretations of the scientific
> method which insist on transparency, but is also contrary to Article
> 27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Oh please. All I said was that questions about specific commercial product
plans weren't appropriate for a WG mailing list. I never said you were
forbidden from asking such questions. In fact I specifically told you that you
should take up the matter in a more appropriate forum.

Of course that doesn't mean that anybody owes you an answer. Indeed, the legal
situation surrounding corporate product plan disclosures and the possibility of
subsequent lawsuits, I'd say the chances of you getting an answer aren't great.
But you are certainly entitled to ask -- in an appropriate forum.

> If your reasoning is based on the possible existence of non-disclosure
> agreements, please say so.  I think we need to have a clear discussion
> about which kinds of NDAs are compatible with IESG duty.

My reasoning is based on the notion that a WG mailing list is for discussions
of the standards that WG is developing and other WG matters, and not a forum
for discussion of commercial product plans. Non-disclosure agreements don't
enter into it at all.

Ned

Re: allowable questions (was Re www...)

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:17:02 EDT, John Day said:
> I do not know about other countries, but I do know that the US 
> government has taken action against companies for announcing products 
> and then deciding later to not offer those products.  Hence, most 
> people do not talk about possible future product offerings until they 
> are duly approved and ready to be offered to customers.

However, I suspect that RamBus is about to find out that failing to
disclose pending patents may be a bad idea:

http://www.ebnews.com/digest/story/OEG20010406S0061

Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-wildgrube-gnp-01.txt

[Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim]

Lloyd Wood wrote:

> That was the odd one out, but I'm getting 404 Not found for other
> recently-announced drafts. Perhaps uploading before announcing would
> be good.

Simple Question: 

   What should I do if I could not find a internet draft that 
   was announced as an I-D action in IETF-Announce?
   (See also:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ietf-i-d_action/messages/ )

Proposed Answer:

- Do nothing; this is a fixable known problem.
- Notify the IETF webmaster(s?); with a risk that they
  will not admit this bug.
- Notify the IESG.
- Complain through the IETF list.
- Complain to the IAB, cc to ICANN, Nanog, ISOC, RFC- Editor.


regards,

-- 
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
- If ain't broke, ain't fix IT;but I'm broke, so IMFix IT!

Re: allowable questions (was Re www...)

[John Day]

At 14:00 -0700 4/8/01, James P. Salsman wrote:
>Patrik,
>
>If you or Ned are not already aware from the context of my disputed
>question and my previous posts, I tried private emails and phone calls,
>prior to my working group question, which was only a footnote to a longer
>list of requested solutions which still seem like entirely constructive
>critisism to me.  As I stated, they were only met with evasions and
>invitations to expensive marketing events.
>
>Is there any way to resolve this situation other than asking IESG
>participants to state their own NDA restrictions up front?

You are perfectly free to ask any question you wish.  However, that 
does not mean that you required to receive an answer.

I do not know about other countries, but I do know that the US 
government has taken action against companies for announcing products 
and then deciding later to not offer those products.  Hence, most 
people do not talk about possible future product offerings until they 
are duly approved and ready to be offered to customers.

You can ask anyone, WG chair or not, about their product plans and 
they would be very foolish to answer with anything other than a 
qualified (evasive, if you will) manner.  You can not and probably 
should not get a definitive answer unless the capability is nearly 
ready for release.  This is all part of doing business.  No company 
will ever commit (nor should they) to implementing a standard before 
it is completed.  Many things can happen between the time a standard 
is developed and the time it is ready for implementation that can 
effect a company's decision.

Unfortunately, uncertainty in business is something we all have to 
learn to live with.

Take care,
John

Re: allowable questions (was Re www...)

[James P. Salsman]

Patrik,

If you or Ned are not already aware from the context of my disputed 
question and my previous posts, I tried private emails and phone calls, 
prior to my working group question, which was only a footnote to a longer 
list of requested solutions which still seem like entirely constructive 
critisism to me.  As I stated, they were only met with evasions and 
invitations to expensive marketing events.

Is there any way to resolve this situation other than asking IESG 
participants to state their own NDA restrictions up front?

Cheers,
James 

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Apr  8 05:44:33 2001
> To: "James P. Salsman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: allowable questions (was Re www...)
> 
> --On 01-04-08 03.08 -0700 "James P. Salsman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Suppose XYZ corporation makes popular software for IP checksums, but
> > their algorithms only work for packet lengths less than 20.  If Robin Doe
> > works for XYZ corporation and has voluntarily become an official of
> > the checksum working group, and that working group has published
> > documents clearly indicating that checksum algorithms must be able to
> > accomodate packets of at least size 40, why is it not appropriate to
> > ask Robin whether XYZ corporation intends to support the requirement?
> 
> Ned wrote that it was unappropriate to have that question on the 
> mailinglist of the wg, and further said you can ask the person in question 
> in private mail.
> 
> You as participant in the IETF have to understand that Robin in your 
> example clearly have to have an ability to differentiate between the two 
> roles he has. As chair of the wg and as a spokesperson for the company. 
> Asking these kind of questions on the wg mailinglist doesn't make the life 
> easy for Robin.
> 
> We have to take care of our wg chairs, as their job is among the most 
> important ones which are done in the IETF. The people working as wg chairs 
> doesn't have an easy task. Espeically not "at home" in cases like the one 
> you describe.
> 
>paf

Re: allowable questions (was Re www...)

[Scott Bradner]

> I think we need to have a clear discussion
> about which kinds of NDAs are compatible with IESG duty.

see RCC 2026 section 10.2 - 

the simple answer is "none"

Scott

Re: allowable questions (was Re www...)

[Patrik Fältström]

--On 01-04-08 03.08 -0700 "James P. Salsman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Suppose XYZ corporation makes popular software for IP checksums, but
> their algorithms only work for packet lengths less than 20.  If Robin Doe
> works for XYZ corporation and has voluntarily become an official of
> the checksum working group, and that working group has published
> documents clearly indicating that checksum algorithms must be able to
> accomodate packets of at least size 40, why is it not appropriate to
> ask Robin whether XYZ corporation intends to support the requirement?

Ned wrote that it was unappropriate to have that question on the 
mailinglist of the wg, and further said you can ask the person in question 
in private mail.

You as participant in the IETF have to understand that Robin in your 
example clearly have to have an ability to differentiate between the two 
roles he has. As chair of the wg and as a spokesperson for the company. 
Asking these kind of questions on the wg mailinglist doesn't make the life 
easy for Robin.

We have to take care of our wg chairs, as their job is among the most 
important ones which are done in the IETF. The people working as wg chairs 
doesn't have an easy task. Espeically not "at home" in cases like the one 
you describe.

   paf

allowable questions (was Re www...)

[James P. Salsman]

Ned,

Please help me understand your reasoning:

> We participate in the IETF as individuals, not as corporate represenatives.
> As such, asking about [company] product plans on the WG mailing is 
> completely and totally inappropriate.

Are you really trying to discourage asking questions of self-selected 
designated experts?

Suppose XYZ corporation makes popular software for IP checksums, but 
their algorithms only work for packet lengths less than 20.  If Robin Doe 
works for XYZ corporation and has voluntarily become an official of 
the checksum working group, and that working group has published 
documents clearly indicating that checksum algorithms must be able to 
accomodate packets of at least size 40, why is it not appropriate to 
ask Robin whether XYZ corporation intends to support the requirement?

Your implication that there should be a prior restraint on allowable 
questions is not only at odds with interpretations of the scientific 
method which insist on transparency, but is also contrary to Article 
27(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If your reasoning is based on the possible existence of non-disclosure 
agreements, please say so.  I think we need to have a clear discussion 
about which kinds of NDAs are compatible with IESG duty.

Cheers,
James