Re: Wordsmithed consensus: #771 Powers of the Chair of the IAOC
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: I have seen very little disagreement on the intent of the words in the paragraphs I quoted, but quite a bit of wordsmithing. So let's try again. The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting members to serve as the chair of the IAOC. The term of the IAOC chair shall be one year from the time of selection or the remaining time of his tenure on the IAOC, whichever is less. An individual may serve any number of terms as chair, if selected by the IAOC. The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from that position at any time by a two thirds vote of the voting membership of the IAOC. The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage the activities and meetings of the IAOC. This is mostly John's text, with tweaks by me and Geoff. I made the term one year from selection (closing off the ambiguity John worried about). s/his/his or her/ Otherwise OK Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Wordsmithed consensus: #771 Powers of the Chair of the IAOC
The text looks fine to me as well. --Jari Brian E Carpenter wrote: Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: I have seen very little disagreement on the intent of the words in the paragraphs I quoted, but quite a bit of wordsmithing. So let's try again. The members of the IAOC shall select one of its appointed voting members to serve as the chair of the IAOC. The term of the IAOC chair shall be one year from the time of selection or the remaining time of his tenure on the IAOC, whichever is less. An individual may serve any number of terms as chair, if selected by the IAOC. The Chair serves at the pleasure of the IAOC, and may be removed from that position at any time by a two thirds vote of the voting membership of the IAOC. The chair of the IAOC shall have the authority to manage the activities and meetings of the IAOC. This is mostly John's text, with tweaks by me and Geoff. I made the term one year from selection (closing off the ambiguity John worried about). s/his/his or her/ Otherwise OK Brian ___ 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: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
[note - this note does NOT talk about the language tags document] Recent standards-track/BCP RFCs that came in as individual submisssions (you can tell this from the draft name in the rfc-editor.xml file): RFC 3936 - draft-kompella-rsvp-change RFC 3935 - draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission RFC 3934 - draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update RFC 3915 - draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp RFC 3912 - draft-daigle-rfc954bis Apart from draft-alvestrand, I don't remember any of these causing much of a stir at Last Call. Still, I think the decision to advance them was appropriate. The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: - there are a number of people who see a need for it - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work on it - someone thinks that this isn't controversial enough for a WG, isn't work enough that the extra effort of setting up a WG is worth it, is too urgently needed to wait for a WG to get up to speed, or other version of "doesn't fit with our WG process - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done A "default no" doesn't seem like a correct procedure here. Harald --On 6. januar 2005 10:48 -0800 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However the reason why many things come in as individual submissions is that the community doesn't care much. I sure hope you are very, very wrong. If the community does not care much, then I do not see the purpose in making it an IETF standard. A standards process is primarily about gaining community support for a common way of doing something. So if the IESG is satisfied enough to put out a last call, and nobody responds -- it doesn't have community support -- the default community position shouldn't be "no" but "no objection". That's a default 'yes'. We already have a problem with producing specifications that no one uses. A default 'yes' on outside submissions makes it likely we will get lots more. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ 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: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Harald, Using these --and my recent experience with draft-klensin-ip-service-terms, which is still in the RFC Editor's queue-- as examples, let me suggest that advancing all of them is still consistent with what I took Dave to be suggesting. In each case, there was evidence of a problem that "some people" felt was worth solving. There was no indication that there was controversy in the community about whether they were right on the problem (again, independent of whether they were right on the solution). For the IESG to look at a completely quiet last call (or at least quiet on the problem statement) and say "looks like there is interest, like the problem is real, and there is no sign of lack of consensus" seems to me to be a reasonable position. But, if the Last Call produces an argument about whether the problem being solved is reasonable or relevant to the community, _then_ I think the burden shifts to the advocates to demonstrate that there really is adequate community support for the idea _and_ for their solution. And, if there isn't relatively clear consensus on the answers, the default had best be either "no" or "if there is really enough interest, it is time to start thinking about WGs or equivalent mechanisms" (which is a different form of "no" where approval as an individual submission is involved). I don't know if that is what Dave intended, but it is how I interpreted his "default no" condition. It does bother me that we can approve a something as a standards-track document about which everyone but the authors and the IESG are sound asleep, but the solution to that problem is for the community to wake up and start taking responsibility. john --On Friday, 07 January, 2005 10:46 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [note - this note does NOT talk about the language tags > document] > Recent standards-track/BCP RFCs that came in as individual > submisssions (you can tell this from the draft name in the > rfc-editor.xml file): > > RFC 3936 - draft-kompella-rsvp-change > RFC 3935 - draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission > RFC 3934 - draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update > RFC 3915 - draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp > RFC 3912 - draft-daigle-rfc954bis > > Apart from draft-alvestrand, I don't remember any of these > causing much of a stir at Last Call. Still, I think the > decision to advance them was appropriate. > The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: > > - there are a number of people who see a need for it > - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are > willing to work on it > - someone thinks that this isn't controversial enough for a > WG, isn't work enough that the extra effort of setting up a WG > is worth it, is too urgently needed to wait for a WG to get up > to speed, or other version of "doesn't fit with our WG process > - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done > > A "default no" doesn't seem like a correct procedure here. > > Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", and extensions
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin scripsit: > Dear John, > thank you to acknowledge that the proposed draft "_impose_" something ! > It therefore do not report on an existing practice. > thank you to acknowledge that the proposed draft even "_limits_" the > current practice ! > thank you to explain that the decision of the user is replaced by an > a-priori obligation .. resulting from a decision of a member of this list. The practice that is being limited is that of the language tag review process (the list, the Reviewer, IANA), not of any user. Users are free to use language tags or not, of course. > Technically, these remarks are however without incidence on John Klenin's > remark: a limitation is only a (negative) extension. And tyranny is only negative liberty, I suppose? Hogwash. > (except that the IANA registrations should be transfered to IANA now [...]) Is this supposed to mean something? -- "How they ever reached any conclusion at all[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is starkly unknowable to the human mind." http://www.reutershealth.com --"Backstage Lensman", Randall Garrett http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", and extensions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit: > What would be really nice is to specify a parameterized matching > algorithm (or more precisely, an algorithm family) along the lines > of the stringprep family of string normalization algorithms. But > I'm unsure if there's sufficient time and interest available to do > this. But it is nice to dream... That would be a Good Thing indeed. However, it is definitely out of scope for this draft, as it would stretch the definition of BCP well beyond the breaking point. If there's any defending the presence of an *algorithm* in a BCP at all, it's because we are not making the algorithm normative, but just saying "The most commonly used algorithm is". -- [W]hen I wrote it I was more than a little John Cowan febrile with foodpoisoning from an antique carrot [EMAIL PROTECTED] that I foolishly ate out of an illjudged faith www.ccil.org/~cowan in the benignancy of vegetables. --And Rosta www.reutershealth.com ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications, "stability", and extensions
John C Klensin scripsit: > > In RFC 3066, it is only a heuristic (or examination of the > > IANA registry, which is not machine-parseable) that tells the > > meaning of the second subtag the existing registered tag > > sr-Latn. In the draft, its meaning is unambiguously specified > > a priori. > > So? So it is meaningless to talk about "breaking backward compatibility" when the behavior in question is a heuristic (or to quote Ned, "it works in most but not all cases"). Registration of new tags under RFC 3066 can and will break the heuristic all by themselves. The new draft talks about scripts, but the existing registered tags talk about scripts too. -- John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place, The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace, We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall, So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale. --Greg Baker ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
I think this line of thought has died down without any great disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following sentence: The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their services as members of the IAOC. belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the end of 4.0 makes for the most reasonable placement (together with all the stuff about membership selection). (Personally, I'm not fond of the word "exceptional". It begs the question of who grants exceptions, and what the criteria for exceptions are. But the debaters seem to favour it. I'd rather say "possible", and add "IAOC sets and publishes rules for reimbursement of expenses, if that ever becomes necessary". But I can live with the current text). ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 06:59:19 -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > In each case, there was evidence of a problem that > "some people" felt was worth solving. My comments were in response to an explicit statement that "the community doesn't care much" and my comments included the statement "A standards process is primarily about gaining community support for a common way of doing something." Thanks for noticing that there is a difference between having no indication of community support, versus "there are a number of people who see a need for it". d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Language tags, the phillips draft, and procedures
Hi. I've just reviewed the last 48 hours of these threads and a very high volume of associated postings, many or most of them after the Last Call formally closed and the tracking system automatically moved the status of the document into the "waiting for AD" state. While Ted Hardie and his colleagues try to sort out how to proceed (an activity on which they should have the sympathy, support, and best wishes of all of us), and in deference to those who follow the IETF list but who would prefer to not be involved in the details of these discussions, I'd like to suggest that everyone voluntarily declare a cooling-off period. The threads themselves indicate to me that we passed, at least several days ago, that critical point in mailing list discussions after which very little that is being said is new; instead, we (and I have certainly been guilty) are repeating variations on the same arguments, sometimes accompanied by rising emotional temperatures, without convincing anyone to change their minds or positions. That, too, is an indication that it is time to stop writing messages and try to regain a bit of perspective. If people are feeling an overwhelming need to find something to think about in this area, I'd suggest two things: The first is a reerading of Kristin Hubner's posting yesterday morning. Whether one agrees with her analysis or not, or believes that the dichotomies are as precise as her note implies, the note was the first attempt I saw in many days, by someone who has not been immersed in the discussion, to take a different cut at understanding the differences in perspective and assumptions that clearly exist. I think that, at this stage, any such thoughtful and serious attempt, by someone who has not generated dozens of messages on these threads, deserves careful reading and thought by the rest of us. The second is that it seems to me that there is an apparent contradiction in some of the discussions. It may not be a real contradiction, but it is adding to the confusion. A simplification of one of the positions is that this work is needed because the design, structure, or semantics of 3066 are insufficient to deal with distinctions (about decomposing tags or about substantive language issues) that are required in the real world. The contrasting position, also simplified, is that this really is not a change to 3066, is forward and backward compatible, and merely represents writing down some restrictions on what can be registered that 3066 leaves to a matter of taste. While it is certainly possible for both of those things to be true, the question that has not been asked on-list is whether the combination actually implies that 3066 is hopelessly broken, that compatibility with it is a bad idea, and that we should really bite the bullet and look for a syntax that does not require trick parsing and that can really support, unambiguously and perhaps extensibly, the various language, country, script, region, time period, phonetic styles, and whatever else, might now or in the future be at issue here. Please don't try to answer that question today, especially on the IETF list. But let's all think about whether the real source of these discussions is, at least in part, the possibility that a key problem is the way in which both 3066 and the proposed replacement are overloading both a style of using ISO 639 and a small amount of syntax and, if so, whether that conclusion should be our real starting point. regards to all, john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
On 1/7/2005 10:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote: I think this line of thought has died down without any great disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following sentence: The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their services as members of the IAOC. belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the end of 4.0 makes for the most reasonable placement (together with all the stuff about membership selection). (Personally, I'm not fond of the word "exceptional". It begs the question of who grants exceptions, and what the criteria for exceptions are. But the debaters seem to favour it. I'd rather say "possible", and add "IAOC sets and publishes rules for reimbursement of expenses, if that ever becomes necessary". But I can live with the current text). I find "possible" to be more prone to confusion than "exceptional", but I like the idea of adding your extra sentence even with "exceptional". ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp ecifications,
> "Peter" == Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It occurs to me that a >> Last Call for an independent submission has an Peter> added >> requirement to satisfy, namely that the community supports >> adoption of Peter> the work. >> We take a working group as a demonstration of community >> support. Peter> You say "the community", though surely a working group is Peter> only representative of "a community" or a portion of "the Peter> community". No. The entire community reviews the chartering of the working group. It's sort of complicated; community consensus does not appear to be required by 3418 in order to form a working group, although I would expect someone to appeal if a WG was formed and there was a rough consensus against the formation of that group. I do agree that individual submission last calls have greater latitude than WG last calls. I think that "Even though the WG supports this, the IETF does not and thus we will not publish," is a valid outcome of an IETF-wide last call. IN practice it's harder to get that result than "The IETF does not support this individual submission; we will not publish." Speaking only to general process and not to the issue at hand. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
> "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Harald> I think this line of thought has died down without any Harald> great disagreement the consensus seems to be that the Harald> following sentence: Harald> The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation Harald> (apart from exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for Harald> their services as members of the IAOC. Harald> belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the Harald> end of 4.0 makes for the most reasonable placement I don't think it belongs; I think ekr made a compelling argument that this is a matter of policy not BCP. That said, I could still support the document if this were added. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think this line of thought has died down without any great > disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following sentence: > > The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from > exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their services as > members of the IAOC. > > belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the end of 4.0 > makes for the most reasonable placement (together with all the stuff > about membership selection). > > (Personally, I'm not fond of the word "exceptional". It begs the > question of who grants exceptions, and what the criteria for > exceptions are. But the debaters seem to favour it. > I'd rather say "possible", and add "IAOC sets and publishes rules for > reimbursement of expenses, if that ever becomes necessary". But I can > live with the current text). I prefer your wording as well. -Ekr ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
--On Friday, 07 January, 2005 16:56 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this line of thought has died down without any great > disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following > sentence: > > The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart > from > exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their services as > members of the IAOC. > > belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the end of > 4.0 makes for the most reasonable placement (together with all > the stuff about membership selection). > > (Personally, I'm not fond of the word "exceptional". It begs > the question of who grants exceptions, and what the criteria > for exceptions are. But the debaters seem to favour it. > I'd rather say "possible", and add "IAOC sets and publishes > rules for reimbursement of expenses, if that ever becomes > necessary". But I can live with the current text). Harald, At the risk of more on-list wordsmithing, and being sympathetic to your preference above, would changing the proposed sentence to read The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their services as members of the IAOC. Should exceptional circumstances justify reimbursement of expenses, the IAOC will set and publish rules for those cases. help sort this out? While trying to make fine distinctions by the choice of words in a sentence is a disease to which I'm probably a lot more prone than average, this proto-BCP seems like the wrong place to do it. The form proposed earlier and repeated in your message not only causes the potential for a debate about "exceptional" but also for a debate about what it really means to include expenses as a "service" that is being performed. On the theory that clarity is a good thing if it can be done easily, let's tie the prohibited "compensation" to services only and then state that expense reimbursement is an exceptional case and that the IAOC gets to figure out what is exceptional and what the rules are. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Harald" == Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Harald> I think this line of thought has died down without any Harald> great disagreement the consensus seems to be that the Harald> following sentence: Harald> The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart Harald> from exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their Harald> services as members of the IAOC. Harald> belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the Harald> end of 4.0 makes for the most reasonable placement Sam> I don't think it belongs; I think ekr made a compelling Sam> argument that this is a matter of policy not BCP. OK, too many things conflated. I agree saying that IAOC members should not get paid for time is appropriate BCP material. I missed all the wordsmithing that lead to the current text, but it looks like there were a fair number of messages. I won't pretend to be able to do better and since we need to say something we should say this. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 18:16, ext Scott W Brim wrote: > On 1/7/2005 10:56, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote: > > > I think this line of thought has died down without any great > > disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following sentence: > > > > The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart from > > exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their services as > > members of the IAOC. > > > > belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the end of 4.0 > > makes for the most reasonable placement (together with all the stuff > > about membership selection). > > > > (Personally, I'm not fond of the word "exceptional". It begs the > > question of who grants exceptions, and what the criteria for > > exceptions are. But the debaters seem to favour it. > > I'd rather say "possible", and add "IAOC sets and publishes rules for > > reimbursement of expenses, if that ever becomes necessary". But I can > > live with the current text). > > > I find "possible" to be more prone to confusion than "exceptional", but > I like the idea of adding your extra sentence even with "exceptional". WFM > > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Jonne Soininen Nokia Tel: +358 40 527 46 34 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Language tags, the phillips draft, and procedures
An important point of which the IETF list members may not be aware is that this work has been carried out as an informal IETF/W3C/Unicode collaboration. For example: - Addison Phillips (co-author) is the Chair of the W3C I18N WG - Mark Davis (co-author) is the President of the Unicode Consortium - Martin Duerst, one of the participants in the debate, is the W3C I18N Activity Lead - John Cowan is co-editor of the W3C's XML specification and XML Information Set specification - Many of the participants in this work over the years have been active in the W3C I18N effort and the Unicode Consortium and the work of discussing the problems of RFC 1766 and later RFC 3066. Furthermore: - The W3C is highly dependent on the RFC 1766/3066 family of RFCs, as language-handling in HTML and XML is delegated to these RFCs. Within the W3C, the responsibility for keeping an eye on these RFCs lies with the I18N WG. - The Unicode Consortium hosts the Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR) Project, which has a close relationship to this work. Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever it likes, but I would urge that any course of action which would cause a parting of the ways between the IETF and the W3C (and other Industry Consortia) should be avoided. I suggest that it may be time to escalate this matter to the IETF/W3C Liaison group. Misha Wolf Standards Manager, Chief Architecture Office, Reuters Founding Chair, W3C I18N WG --- - Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
*bleah* Generally its better to have rules *before* the exceptional events occur. "The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only." At 11:32 AM 1/7/2005, John C Klensin wrote: --On Friday, 07 January, 2005 16:56 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this line of thought has died down without any great > disagreement the consensus seems to be that the following > sentence: > > The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart > from > exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their services as > members of the IAOC. > > belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the end of > 4.0 makes for the most reasonable placement (together with all > the stuff about membership selection). > > (Personally, I'm not fond of the word "exceptional". It begs > the question of who grants exceptions, and what the criteria > for exceptions are. But the debaters seem to favour it. > I'd rather say "possible", and add "IAOC sets and publishes > rules for reimbursement of expenses, if that ever becomes > necessary". But I can live with the current text). Harald, At the risk of more on-list wordsmithing, and being sympathetic to your preference above, would changing the proposed sentence to read The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation for their services as members of the IAOC. Should exceptional circumstances justify reimbursement of expenses, the IAOC will set and publish rules for those cases. help sort this out? While trying to make fine distinctions by the choice of words in a sentence is a disease to which I'm probably a lot more prone than average, this proto-BCP seems like the wrong place to do it. The form proposed earlier and repeated in your message not only causes the potential for a debate about "exceptional" but also for a debate about what it really means to include expenses as a "service" that is being performed. On the theory that clarity is a good thing if it can be done easily, let's tie the prohibited "compensation" to services only and then state that expense reimbursement is an exceptional case and that the IAOC gets to figure out what is exceptional and what the rules are. john ___ 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: Language tags, the phillips draft, and procedures
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John C Klensin > I'd like > to suggest that everyone voluntarily declare a cooling-off > period... > Please don't try to > answer that question today, especially on the IETF list. I'll respect that request. I'll only comment that I think both you and Kristin failed to identify where the real dichotomies lies. For instance, your second suggestion was to think about the contradiction between the two positions, but in fact the supporters of the draft would describe their position as involving elements of both of the two opposing positions in your analysis. Some of those who have raised concerns with the draft have expressed frustration at not being heard, which is a reasonable complaint, and I have made a real attempt to understand those concerns. (E.g. the last sequences of exchanges between Ned and me; and my acknowledgment of comments you've made wrt process and WGs.) Please understand that there may also be frustration for supporters of the draft from a perception that their position is not being understood, which may result for instance from analyses of the opposing views that really don't capture their position at all. For my part, I won't say I'm frustrated by the analysis you gave; just disappointed that I haven't been able to get us closer to the place where we agree on what the dichotomies are, which I had hoped to do. Peter Constable ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Harald, This does not discuss the language tags comment. This case however provides some experience. The real problem I see is the increased need of Practice Documentation. RFC 3066 is a BCP yet it introduces issues (and the proposed RFC 3066bis does more) which are not established but proposed or even modified practices, without the proper debate with other areas some consider as concerned (IDN, OPES, Web Services, architecture, etc.) what an IAB approved charter would have warranted. In this case there is also the oddity of a private list bearing responsibilities on the IANA. You say this may happen when the matter has not been considered being worth a WG. I have nothing to object to that. But I can document that in this particular case I sent you a private mail a few months ago asking guidance on the way to organize a WG. You did not signaled me your "ietf" list. I can also only note this is a consistent position with the IAB/IESG, since RFC 3869 does not even allude to the matter. That some's positions are more equal than other is a feature of 1st generation networks, so I will not object. But I suggest this calls for a better WG proposition track. In this case a WG would have saved time and harassment (I am used to be insulted and I have no problem with it, should it help). IRT the need of PB documentation. This case shows that there would have been no problem and full consensus if the "BEST" as documented in RFC 2026.5.1 could have been replaced by a "DOCUMENTED" or by a "SUGGESTED". This made me a supposed "main" and "odious" and "gerrymandering" etc... "opponent" of the draft. Should the author have been able to present a DCP for what is already in use, and an SCP for what he proposes, we would now considered how to continue further, may be along the working protocol I documented. I can quote many other areas where such a SCP/DCP use could lead to a progressive practice aggregation or transition and innovation. Regards. jfc At 10:46 07/01/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: [note - this note does NOT talk about the language tags document] Recent standards-track/BCP RFCs that came in as individual submisssions (you can tell this from the draft name in the rfc-editor.xml file): RFC 3936 - draft-kompella-rsvp-change RFC 3935 - draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission RFC 3934 - draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update RFC 3915 - draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp RFC 3912 - draft-daigle-rfc954bis Apart from draft-alvestrand, I don't remember any of these causing much of a stir at Last Call. Still, I think the decision to advance them was appropriate. The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: - there are a number of people who see a need for it - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work on it - someone thinks that this isn't controversial enough for a WG, isn't work enough that the extra effort of setting up a WG is worth it, is too urgently needed to wait for a WG to get up to speed, or other version of "doesn't fit with our WG process - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done A "default no" doesn't seem like a correct procedure here. Harald --On 6. januar 2005 10:48 -0800 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However the reason why many things come in as individual submissions is that the community doesn't care much. I sure hope you are very, very wrong. If the community does not care much, then I do not see the purpose in making it an IETF standard. A standards process is primarily about gaining community support for a common way of doing something. So if the IESG is satisfied enough to put out a last call, and nobody responds -- it doesn't have community support -- the default community position shouldn't be "no" but "no objection". That's a default 'yes'. We already have a problem with producing specifications that no one uses. A default 'yes' on outside submissions makes it likely we will get lots more. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
--On Friday, 07 January, 2005 12:00 -0500 Michael StJohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *bleah* Generally its better to have rules *before* the > exceptional events occur. > > "The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement > of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for > exceptional cases only." Personally I like that better. Much better. I even agree about the "*bleah*" part. I was just trying to reflect the position on which Harald believes consensus had been attained, i.e., I was trying to improve the language without changing what seemed to be the intent -- both the original language and Harald's proposed new sentence would have left things in a state in which the IAOC would probably first encounter the problem, then start making rules. If the effect of that language change is to identify a problem with the intent and to get it fixed, I think that is great. john > At 11:32 AM 1/7/2005, John C Klensin wrote: > > >> --On Friday, 07 January, 2005 16:56 +0100 Harald Tveit >> Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > I think this line of thought has died down without any great >> > disagreement the consensus seems to be that the >> > following sentence: >> > >> > The IAOC members shall not receive any compensation (apart >> > from >> > exceptional reimbursement of expenses) for their services >> > as members of the IAOC. >> > >> > belongs in the document. I think that placing it at the end >> > of 4.0 makes for the most reasonable placement (together >> > with all the stuff about membership selection). >> > >> > (Personally, I'm not fond of the word "exceptional". It begs >> > the question of who grants exceptions, and what the criteria >> > for exceptions are. But the debaters seem to favour it. >> > I'd rather say "possible", and add "IAOC sets and publishes >> > rules for reimbursement of expenses, if that ever becomes >> > necessary". But I can live with the current text). >> >> Harald, >> >> At the risk of more on-list wordsmithing, and being >> sympathetic to your preference above, would changing the >> proposed sentence to read >> >> The IAOC members shall not receive any >> compensation for their services as members of >> the IAOC. Should exceptional circumstances >> justify reimbursement of expenses, the IAOC >> will set and publish rules for those cases. >> >> help sort this out? >> >> While trying to make fine distinctions by the choice of words >> in a sentence is a disease to which I'm probably a lot more >> prone than average, this proto-BCP seems like the wrong place >> to do it. The form proposed earlier and repeated in your >> message not only causes the potential for a debate about >> "exceptional" but also for a debate about what it really >> means to include expenses as a "service" that is being >> performed. On the theory that clarity is a good thing if it >> can be done easily, let's tie the prohibited "compensation" >> to services only and then state that expense reimbursement is >> an exceptional case and that the IAOC gets to figure out what >> is exceptional and what the rules are. >> >> john >> >> >> ___ >> 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Looking at the recent announcements of I-Ds, I think we will get a substantial number of URI/URL related drafts in the coming months which will also test this procedure. Their revision numbers are clocking up so they are being discussed but not AFAICS on any IETF-related list. And these seem to be standards track. I am in the 'default no' camp. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:46 AM Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no. [note - this note does NOT talk about the language tags document] Recent standards-track/BCP RFCs that came in as individual submisssions (you can tell this from the draft name in the rfc-editor.xml file): RFC 3936 - draft-kompella-rsvp-change RFC 3935 - draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission RFC 3934 - draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update RFC 3915 - draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp RFC 3912 - draft-daigle-rfc954bis Apart from draft-alvestrand, I don't remember any of these causing much of a stir at Last Call. Still, I think the decision to advance them was appropriate. The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: - there are a number of people who see a need for it - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work on it - someone thinks that this isn't controversial enough for a WG, isn't work enough that the extra effort of setting up a WG is worth it, is too urgently needed to wait for a WG to get up to speed, or other version of "doesn't fit with our WG process - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done A "default no" doesn't seem like a correct procedure here. Harald .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
At 6:07 PM +0100 1/7/05, Tom Petch wrote: Looking at the recent announcements of I-Ds, I think we will get a substantial number of URI/URL related drafts in the coming months which will also test this procedure. Their revision numbers are clocking up so they are being discussed but not AFAICS on any IETF-related list. And these seem to be standards track. URI-related drafts are discussed on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. This was the list of the IETF URI working group, when it was active, and it is still used by the URI community to discuss URI schemes and updates to the URI standards. With the publication of the core URI spec as a standard (RFC 2396bis), there are several efforts under way to clean up the related standards. One of those efforts is to move the existing scheme definitions in RFC 1738 into separate documents, so that RFC 1738 can be declared obsolete. A second effort is to move the registration procedures for URI schemes onto a new basis, since the existing basis has resulted in organizations minting unregistered schemes. Lastly, there is the usual traffic of documents for new schemes, like the SNMP URI scheme recently discussed; these last may not be individual submissions, since the working group chartered for the protocol tends to develop the documents for its URI scheme. The URI mailing list acts there only as a useful source of reviewers. As much as we might like the handy "default yes"/"default no" terminology, the reality is that individual submissions for the standards track have varying levels of support and interest when they reach the point of IETF Last Call. Defaulting all proposals to "no" that have no working group behind them collapses that too far, in my personal opinion. The important point to me is that the Last Call gives an opportunity for the IETF community as a whole to give a cross-area review of a proposal. Feedback at this stage is crucial to determining whether a proposal will have positive, negative, or no effect on the parts of the Internet infrastructure which are not the core competence of the draft's authors. Working groups tend to have broader sets of competence than individual authors or design teams, but it is this same benefit that we seek with each Last Call. regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Consensus? #770 Compensation for IAOC members
Michael, Your proposed text is OK for me. --Jari Michael StJohns wrote: *bleah* Generally its better to have rules *before* the exceptional events occur. "The IAOC shall set and publish rules covering reimbursement of expenses and such reimbursement shall generally be for exceptional cases only." ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:46:41 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: > > - there are a number of people who see a need for it > - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work > on it > - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done Harald, Given that we are talking about an individual submission, two points from your list are curious: 1. The last point is at least confusing, since the submission comes *after* the work has been done; otherwise it would be a working group effort; so I do not know what additional work you are envisioning. 2. Since there is no track record for the work -- given that it has not been done in an IETF working group -- then what is the basis for assessing its community support, abssent Last Call comments? If one has no concern for the IETF's producing useless and unsupported specifications, then it does not much matter whether marginal specifications are passed. However the IESG's diligence at seeking perfection in working group output submitted for approval suggests that, indeed, there is concern both for efficacy and safety. How are either of these assessed for an individual submission, if not by requiring a Last Call to elicit substantial and serious commentary of support? d/ ps. The IESG used to be very forceful in requiring explicit statements (demonstrations) of community support; . I suspect we have moved, instead, towards delegating the assessment almost entirely to our representatives and their subjective preferences for work that is submitted. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Dear Ted, the experience of this Last Call shown the problem comes from the diversity of the internet. You may feel that a proposed solution is minor in your area and not realize that it has a big impact in others areas. This is why WGs are important: their Charters are the only place for some kind of coordination of the internet architecture. Otherwise the only time for concerned areas to exchange is the Last Call. Too late. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
