Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org
Total of 36 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 11 00:03:01 EDT 2006 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 16.67% |6 | 16.71% |32127 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11.11% |4 | 10.61% |20394 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11.11% |4 | 8.53% |16403 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8.33% |3 | 9.36% |18001 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8.33% |3 | 8.33% |16006 | moore@cs.utk.edu 8.33% |3 | 8.10% |15570 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.56% |2 | 5.78% |3 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.56% |2 | 4.69% | 9013 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5.56% |2 | 4.66% | 8951 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.78% |1 | 4.51% | 8670 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.78% |1 | 4.04% | 7762 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.78% |1 | 3.23% | 6217 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.78% |1 | 3.13% | 6016 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.78% |1 | 3.07% | 5911 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.78% |1 | 2.75% | 5281 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.78% |1 | 2.50% | 4815 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--++--+ 100.00% | 36 |100.00% | 192250 | Total ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]
Frank, I was the _only_ one who was NOT concerned by Brian's proposition. I did not intend to comment it, thinking it was a good way towards appeasement. However, I was everywhere in Harald's long ad-hominem (BTW mostly against the IETF appeal procedure). His point is against me. There are two different issues: - the IETF police which should be exercised by Sargents at Arms as everywhere, and a closed-door Honor Jury for ethical issues. - the nature of the Internet architecture. Harald embodies a vision (RFC 3935) where he influences the way I should design, use, and manage the internet and he wants to impose on me through his control of the IANA registry. I disagree with that way. Maintaining confusion helps no one. jfc At 01:30 11/08/2006, Frank Ellermann wrote: Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a >>> raincoat next week. It's still raining. > 3683 = umbrella against a hail of messages > Long term suspensions under draft-hartman = raincoat > Brian's draft = "throwing away". Oh, you prefer to keep 3683, instead of the status-quo antea as specified in the draft. In practice the difference would be no mandatory "PR action last call" without 3683, anything else (incl. appeals) as is, if I understood it correctly. Frank ___ 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: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]
Harald Alvestrand wrote: >>> Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a >>> raincoat next week. It's still raining. > 3683 = umbrella against a hail of messages > Long term suspensions under draft-hartman = raincoat > Brian's draft = "throwing away". Oh, you prefer to keep 3683, instead of the status-quo antea as specified in the draft. In practice the difference would be no mandatory "PR action last call" without 3683, anything else (incl. appeals) as is, if I understood it correctly. Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]
Harald, Especially this simile. The way I read this draft, it suggests that the IETF in general has found the choice between fixed length suspensions and indefinite suspension altogether too restraining. The explicit wording of the 2 paragraphs of substantive text is that the IESG was implicitly allowed to use progressively longer suspensions for repeat offenders - prior to our arriving at the present combination of implicit and explicit interpretations of existing documents - and suggests that a return to this model is actually better in the short term than a continuation of the current highly controversial and inneffective situation. I can - by no stretch of the imagination - make this conform to your weather analogy. The current situation is felt by many to be worse than the previous situation. Even if there is a proposal on the table right now that seems likely to be better than either, it still makes sense to revert to the previous situation as soon as we can possibly do so. -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:23 PM --> To: Frank Ellermann --> Cc: ietf@ietf.org --> Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt] --> --> Frank Ellermann wrote: --> > Harald Alvestrand wrote: --> > --> > --> >> Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a --> >> raincoat next week. It's still raining. --> >> --> > --> > If the "umbrella" is Sam's experiment, and the "raincoat" --> > Brian's draft, then the latter didn't propose to throw --> > away the former. Are you talking about something else ? --> > --> 3683 = umbrella against a hail of messages --> Long term suspensions under draft-hartman = raincoat --> --> Brian's draft = "throwing away". --> --> Similes are hard --> --> --> ___ --> 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: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]
I regard a 6-month ritual of: 1) Unsuspending Jefsey from ietf-languages 2) Waiting until Jefsey discovers his unsuspension 3) Wading through Jefsey posts until everyone's sure he's still as incomprehensible as before 4) Convincing my then-current AD that it's time for another 6-month suspension 5) Suspending Jefsey for another 6 months 6) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the AD 7) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the IESG 8) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the IAB 9) Dealing with his appeal of the violation of his human rights to the ISOC BoD as a silly waste of energy, an affront to people's sanity, and harmful to the IETF. I agree 100%. I will also add that the statement "BCP 83 [RFC3683] has been found troublesome and contentious in practice" is perhaps the silliest justification for an action I've ever seen: Since these procedures are by definition intended to deal with troublesome situations, it would be a quite a feat if they were not themselves troublesome. And should the day ever arrive when one of these actions isn't at least somewhat contentious, our ability to meld quality standards in the crucible of vigorous debate will surely have been lost. draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment has been approved for 2 months at this point. While it disallows procedures that suspend people beyond November 2007, a procedure authorized under that umbrella would be a much better first step. Agreed as well. I have no problem with modifying or even replacing RFC 3683, but eliminating it is the wrong thing to do. Ned ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]
> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Brian> This is a personal draft written following some discussion Brian> in the recent General Area open meeting. Comments welcome. Brian> I am already aware that it needs to be reconciled with Brian> http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/statement-disruptive-posting.txt I'm not sure much reconciliation is required. I'd certainly prefer non-normative reconciliation --saying something like "Non-working group lists are not currently covered by BCP; see this statement for the procedures at the time of approval at this draft," to normative reconciliation. My preference stems from a desire to make as few changes as possible. If the community wants to normatively define non-working-group lists and can come to consensus on this, that would be fine too. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]
> "Harald" == Harald Alvestrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Harald> I regard a 6-month ritual of: 1) Unsuspending Jefsey from Harald> ietf-languages 2) Waiting until Jefsey discovers his Harald> unsuspension 3) Wading through Jefsey posts until Harald> everyone's sure he's still as incomprehensible as before Harald> 4) Convincing my then-current AD that it's time for Harald> another 6-month suspension 5) Suspending Jefsey for Harald> another 6 months 6) Dealing with his appeal of the Harald> suspension to the AD 7) Dealing with his appeal of the Harald> suspension to the IESG 8) Dealing with his appeal of the Harald> suspension to the IAB 9) Dealing with his appeal of the Harald> violation of his human rights to the ISOC BoD Harald> as a silly waste of energy, an affront to people's sanity, Harald> and harmful to the IETF. I agree with you. I don't see anyone advocating for this ritual or any path that involves this ritual. I don't understand who is thinking this ritual is a good idea or is claiming this ritual is how we will do things. Harald> draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment has been approved for Harald> 2 months at this point. While it disallows procedures that Harald> suspend people beyond November 2007, a procedure Harald> authorized under that umbrella would be a much better Harald> first step. I expect to bring forward a procedure under this draft for the next telechat. The IESG would then of course announce the procedure and have 14 days of feedback before it goes into effect. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]
Frank Ellermann wrote: Harald Alvestrand wrote: Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a raincoat next week. It's still raining. If the "umbrella" is Sam's experiment, and the "raincoat" Brian's draft, then the latter didn't propose to throw away the former. Are you talking about something else ? 3683 = umbrella against a hail of messages Long term suspensions under draft-hartman = raincoat Brian's draft = "throwing away". Similes are hard ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]
Dear Harald, its seems that you are rewriting History (past and future) in the same funny way as before (eg. your PR-action letter). BTW I am happy to learn I am only suspended for 6 months from the obsolete [EMAIL PROTECTED] One month to go then. Look, you have used RFC 3683 to DoS me, prevent the use of the "en-eu" langtag, make the IESG violate the WG-LTRU workable consensus I wanted and obtained, and confuse many to enforce your vision of the IETF. This RFC 3935 of yours vision where leaders like you make decisions to "influence the way the people design, use, and manage the Internet". This was a cute trick. Making the most important architectural issue addressed through a confuse ad-hominem. Protecting your lobby from having to answer any technical point. But I am afraid this mostly disserved your positions. This is not the place for me to dwell on it. But we all experience that it hurts the IETF's credibility in the linguistic and political areas. Is that what you want? I do not. I only want: - interoperability between your UNICODE system for the IANA and the rest of our world, - independence for the IANA without having to look for your "somewhere else", - and the IETF to differentiate the English Globalization and Multilingualisation architectural layers. or the IAB to say they do not want it. To document the http://bcp47.org site. If you want me to pursue on the way you impose me, I will. However, is it your best interest? I will most probably continue to win, while we should agree and work together. Your decision anyway. jfc At 15:30 10/08/2006, Harald Alvestrand wrote: I regard a 6-month ritual of: 1) Unsuspending Jefsey from ietf-languages 2) Waiting until Jefsey discovers his unsuspension 3) Wading through Jefsey posts until everyone's sure he's still as incomprehensible as before 4) Convincing my then-current AD that it's time for another 6-month suspension 5) Suspending Jefsey for another 6 months 6) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the AD 7) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the IESG 8) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the IAB 9) Dealing with his appeal of the violation of his human rights to the ISOC BoD as a silly waste of energy, an affront to people's sanity, and harmful to the IETF. draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment has been approved for 2 months at this point. While it disallows procedures that suspend people beyond November 2007, a procedure authorized under that umbrella would be a much better first step. Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a raincoat next week. It's still raining. Harald Brian E Carpenter wrote: This is a personal draft written following some discussion in the recent General Area open meeting. Comments welcome. I am already aware that it needs to be reconciled with http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/statement-disruptive-posting.txt Brian Original Message Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:50:01 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title: Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions Author(s): B. Carpenter Filename: draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt Pages: 5 Date: 2006-8-9 This document abolishes the existing form of indefinite Posting Rights Action and restores the previous option of finite posting rights suspensions authorized by an Area Director. It obsoletes RFC 3683 and updates RFC 2418 and RFC 3934. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt ___ 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: RFC 4612 - historic status
Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Historically, "documenting for reference" produces an Informational status, >> rather than Historic. > > Yes, and the idea was to make a stronger statement than "for reference". > iirc, we considered briefly approving it for Informational and then > immediately reclassifying it as Historic. But that seemed silly. If the IETF wanted to "make a statement" why not merely add text that makes the desired statement? Again, this has been the usual approach. Why change from that? Going to Informational and then Historic would, indeed, be silly. It confuses the semantics of Informational, since it implies that Informational has some sort of standards status. The model that has the IETF focus heavily on matters of "precedence", particularly with respect to specifications that are not standards track, seems questionable, at best. It means that rather than relying on questions of technical efficacy, scaling, and the like, the IESG is instead worrying about future, hypothetical, unstated human abuses. At the least: > concern that the format not become a precedent > for future media types should produce explicit text added to the document, so that readers can understand whatever problems there are with this approach. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]
Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a > raincoat next week. It's still raining. If the "umbrella" is Sam's experiment, and the "raincoat" Brian's draft, then the latter didn't propose to throw away the former. Are you talking about something else ? Maybe the experiment should be added to its "informative references". Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]
I regard a 6-month ritual of: 1) Unsuspending Jefsey from ietf-languages 2) Waiting until Jefsey discovers his unsuspension 3) Wading through Jefsey posts until everyone's sure he's still as incomprehensible as before 4) Convincing my then-current AD that it's time for another 6-month suspension 5) Suspending Jefsey for another 6 months 6) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the AD 7) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the IESG 8) Dealing with his appeal of the suspension to the IAB 9) Dealing with his appeal of the violation of his human rights to the ISOC BoD as a silly waste of energy, an affront to people's sanity, and harmful to the IETF. draft-hartman-mailinglist-experiment has been approved for 2 months at this point. While it disallows procedures that suspend people beyond November 2007, a procedure authorized under that umbrella would be a much better first step. Don't throw away the umbrella because you're buying a raincoat next week. It's still raining. Harald Brian E Carpenter wrote: This is a personal draft written following some discussion in the recent General Area open meeting. Comments welcome. I am already aware that it needs to be reconciled with http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/statement-disruptive-posting.txt Brian Original Message Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:50:01 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title: Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions Author(s): B. Carpenter Filename: draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt Pages: 5 Date: 2006-8-9 This document abolishes the existing form of indefinite Posting Rights Action and restores the previous option of finite posting rights suspensions authorized by an Area Director. It obsoletes RFC 3683 and updates RFC 2418 and RFC 3934. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt ___ 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: [INDEP] Re: [IAOC] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
Err uh Keith - No... - Original Message - From: "Keith Moore" To: "Joe Touch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [INDEP] Re: [IAOC] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request > > > What you say might have been true up until say the mid 1980s, but > > > today, it's hard to defend that statement. For many years the vast > > > majority of RFCs have been produced by IETF either from working groups > > > or individual submissions. > > > > That vast number does not establish the credibility of the series; the > > original ones do. > > disagree. the value of the RFC series is that most of the important > technical specifications for the Internet (below the apps layer, > anyway) can be found there. if the RFC series only contained the > original TCP, UDP, and IP specs, those documents would still be > valuable, but the series would not be nearly as valuable as it is today. Uh yeah - after the fact that is... By the way - how valuable do you think the series is? By the way this was about Credibility and you spun that into Value - nice - but not the issue. As to the Credibility of the RFC's that is tied to the RFC's process - which sucks at best IMHO. The value is a different issue totally. Nice try. > > > Congestion control originated in a Sigcomm paper, not > > the IETF. At the end of the day, it is the IETF that is, IMO, expendable. > > at the end of the day, we will all be dust, and everything we have > produced will have been diffused to the point that those remaining > will be unable to reliably tell who did what. That's becuase of the process - not because of "how things are"... sorry. If the IETF had its act together this wouldnt be true. > to the extent our lives > have any value, it's probably not enhanced by our expending energy > trying to pin down such things. Wow - so now this is about Life Value - where do you draw the line? > > Keith > > ___ > 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: [INDEP] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
Yaakov, It might be me, but it seems (to me) that - if you think through what you've said - it is not consistent. Maybe it's simply an issue of relative time scales. Your last statement - that a break in the series would invalidate it - argues very forcibly that no such "gap" can be allowed to occur going forward (unless you are of the opinion that IP, TCP, UDP etc. are "done evolving"). Hence, something would have to take the place of the IETF and the RFC series practically immediately. Don't you agree? -- Eric --> -Original Message- --> From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:41 AM --> To: Keith Moore; Joe Touch --> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org; --> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; --> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; independent@ietf.org --> Subject: [INDEP] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request --> --> --> > That vast number does not establish the credibility of --> the series; the --> --> > original ones do. --> --> IP, TCP, UDP, etc would not cease to be used --> if either the IETF or the RFC editor disappeared, --> or even if their original RFCs forgotten. --> --> The main importance of the RFC series is the --> demonstration of continuity --> from the early roots and the present IETF work. --> --> The "credibility" of the original standards (not the "series") is --> important, --> but were there a gap between then and now, --> the series would be rendered useless. --> --> Y(J)S --> --> --> ___ --> INDEPENDENT mailing list --> INDEPENDENT@ietf.org --> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent --> ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
> That vast number does not establish the credibility of the series; the > original ones do. IP, TCP, UDP, etc would not cease to be used if either the IETF or the RFC editor disappeared, or even if their original RFCs forgotten. The main importance of the RFC series is the demonstration of continuity from the early roots and the present IETF work. The "credibility" of the original standards (not the "series") is important, but were there a gap between then and now, the series would be rendered useless. Y(J)S ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt]
This is a personal draft written following some discussion in the recent General Area open meeting. Comments welcome. I am already aware that it needs to be reconciled with http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/statement-disruptive-posting.txt Brian Original Message Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:50:01 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Progressive Posting Rights Supsensions Author(s) : B. Carpenter Filename: draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt Pages : 5 Date: 2006-8-9 This document abolishes the existing form of indefinite Posting Rights Action and restores the previous option of finite posting rights suspensions authorized by an Area Director. It obsoletes RFC 3683 and updates RFC 2418 and RFC 3934. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-rescind-3683-00.txt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
