Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
John Levine wrote: Despite currently excessive number of comments, I think we should invite more comments and make it easier, not harder to send them. Even if traffic on the list is now too high and information content per message is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF Last Call stage is too low. The problem isn't sending the comments, it's getting people to read drafts, think about them, and offer cogent comments. It is not clear if you imply that people read more the comments than the drafts. However, comments and drafts are not formally linked. For an example of a different approach, those who commented on the GPLv3 draft saw its web interface. Text had different colors according to the number of comments related to a given snippet. One could click on the text to browse related comments, and possibly answer or add to them. Perhaps, we could send comments to ietf-opaquelinkto...@ietf.org, where one can get such token while viewing the draft with a web tool, in order to link a comment to a specific section of the relevant draft's text. This or similar technique would allow to formally link the drafts to their comments, without altering the current work flow. More web links to the drafts, e.g. attached to a message while removing the opaque token before resending, may result in more draft lookups. Just a thought. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
Jari Arkko wrote: Despite currently excessive number of comments, I think we should invite more comments and make it easier, not harder to send them. Even if traffic on the list is now too high and information content per message is low, in general our average number of comments in the IETF Last Call stage is too low. I don't have a problem with the number of messages. Deleting is easy. But I wouldn't mind stricter enforcement of the Subject lines... Note that this opinion is entirely separate from the value of the comments. Repetition and mail bombing is not valuable. Well justified opinions are very valuable. The latter may come from both inside and outside the IETF; sometimes experts on some topic can be persuaded to send in a comment, but not to subscribe to lists or engage in lengthy debate. I think anyone who posts to the IETF list should have his unsubscribe function disabled for a week. That seems like a punishment that fits the crime. (despite the obvious workarounds) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
Lawrence Rosen wrote: Chuck Powers wrote: +1 That is a legal quagmire that the IETF (like all good standards development groups) must avoid. Chuck is not alone in saying that, as you have just seen. These are the very people who refused to add patent policy to the charter of the previous IPR WG, and who controlled consensus on that point last time. To be precise: Last time was at the San Francisco IETF meeting, March 16-22 2003, and I was the one controlling consensus. The minutes (at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/132.htm ) show this conclusion, after much discussion: 1. do you wish this group to recharter to cdhange the IETF's IPR policy hum for (some) hom anti (more) fairly clear consensus against rechartering. anyone disagree? harald: will verified on mailing list, will lead to some debate. if consensus is reached against rechartering... the IETF will not consider proposals to create or reactivate IPR wg before people with compelling arg to do so. those should be different than what prevented so far. Despite the abysmal spelling quality, it was pretty clear at the time that the arguments presented were not compelling. I haven't seen significant new arguments in the meantime; that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Jari Arkko wrote: Note that this opinion is entirely separate from the value of the comments. Repetition and mail bombing is not valuable. Well justified opinions are very valuable. The latter may come from both inside and outside the IETF; sometimes experts on some topic can be persuaded to send in a comment, but not to subscribe to lists or engage in lengthy debate. I think anyone who posts to the IETF list should have his unsubscribe function disabled for a week. That seems like a punishment that fits the crime. (despite the obvious workarounds) But first, subscribing must be required, or automatic with the post confirmtion. I thought my 2 day penalty box was radical, but a week would be fine with me. Dave Morris ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: San Francisco IETF Code Sprint
The current thinking about the San Francisco IETF Code Sprint can be found here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/wiki/IETF74Sprint Please signup on this wiki page if you plan to attend: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/ietfdb/wiki/IETF74SprintSignUp Your support with the tools development effort is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Russ San Francisco IETF Code Sprint When: March 21, 2009, begining at 9:30 AM Where: IETF Hotel: Hilton San Francisco What: A bunch of hackers get together to work on code for IETF tools, with a focus on converting Perl scripts used in the IETF web site to the Django framework. Some people may be adding new functionality. All code will become part of the open source IETF tools. Who: Hopefully you can help Robert Sparks, Henrik Levkowetz, and Bill Fenner will be coordinating the event. You will hear more from them shortly, beginning with brainstorming about which things to work on during this event. Please support the tools development effort, Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
The problem isn't sending the comments, it's getting people to read drafts, think about them, and offer cogent comments. It is not clear if you imply that people read more the comments than the drafts. However, comments and drafts are not formally linked. It doesn't matter whether they read the drafts in a multi-colored hyperlinked web interface or hand lettered on parchment. But comments from people who haven't read what they're commenting on are, as we have just seen, unlikely to be of use to anyone. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
Harald Alvestrand writing about decisions made on March 16-22 2003: 1. do you wish this group to recharter to cdhange the IETF's IPR policy hum for (some) hom anti (more) fairly clear consensus against rechartering. anyone disagree? Hi Harald, Let's forget the past; I acknowledge we lost that argument then among those few who bothered to hum. But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? This is not the first such open source campaign either. IETF needs a more sturdy process to deal with IPR issues. Please consider the suggestions now on the table. Best regards, /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen -Original Message- From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:har...@alvestrand.no] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 5:10 AM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent) Lawrence Rosen wrote: Chuck Powers wrote: +1 That is a legal quagmire that the IETF (like all good standards development groups) must avoid. Chuck is not alone in saying that, as you have just seen. These are the very people who refused to add patent policy to the charter of the previous IPR WG, and who controlled consensus on that point last time. To be precise: Last time was at the San Francisco IETF meeting, March 16-22 2003, and I was the one controlling consensus. The minutes (at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03mar/132.htm ) show this conclusion, after much discussion: 1. do you wish this group to recharter to cdhange the IETF's IPR policy hum for (some) hom anti (more) fairly clear consensus against rechartering. anyone disagree? harald: will verified on mailing list, will lead to some debate. if consensus is reached against rechartering... the IETF will not consider proposals to create or reactivate IPR wg before people with compelling arg to do so. those should be different than what prevented so far. Despite the abysmal spelling quality, it was pretty clear at the time that the arguments presented were not compelling. I haven't seen significant new arguments in the meantime; that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [Fwd: Re: Changes needed to Last Call boilerplate]
From: David Morris d...@xpasc.com
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
I think anyone who posts to the IETF list should have his unsubscribe
function disabled for a week.
That seems like a punishment that fits the crime.
But first, subscribing must be required, or automatic with the post
confirmtion. I thought my 2 day penalty box was radical, but a week
would be fine with me.
Don't I seem to recall people complaining recently, and with some heat, that
someone was subscribing people to a mailing list, and not letting them
unsubscribe?
Yes, this is different (a week only in the box), and presumably there would
be a warning ('if you subscribe to this list, you'll be here for a minimum of
a week'), but still...
Noel
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an misleading screed to make the IETF change direction? From the sample of the FSF letters I read, many of the people writing didn't know the difference between Redphone and Red Hat, and if as many as two of them had even looked at the draft or IPR disclosure in question, it'd be a lot. The FSF's absolutist position on patents was set in stone 20 years ago. I don't see why we should be impressed if they occasionally throw a handful of pebbles at us. R's, John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
At 2:11 PM -0800 2/16/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Let's forget the past; I acknowledge we lost that argument then among those few who bothered to hum. Many of us have heard this in various technical working groups when people who didn't get their way come back later. Such reconsiderations, particularly on topics of a non-protocol nature, are rarely embraced. We are humans with limited time and energy and focus. But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? No, it is a statement that a group of people who are not active in the IETF want us to spend our time and effort to fix a problem they feel that they have. This is not the first such open source campaign either. IETF needs a more sturdy process to deal with IPR issues. Please consider the suggestions now on the table. Where? I see no Internet Draft, nor any significant group of people who have said they are willing to work on the problem. Seriously, if this is a significant issue for this motivated group of people, they can do some research and write one (or probably more) Internet Drafts. The IETF has never been swayed by blitzes of a mailing list asking for us to do someone else's technical work; we should not be swayed by similar blitzes asking us to do their policy work. We are, however, amazingly (and sometime painfully) open to discussing worked-out solutions of either a technical or policy nature. In this case, worked-out means a document that describes the the current solution, the advantages and disadvantages of it, a proposal for a new solution, and a transition plan. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent)
But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? Are you really saying that all it takes is a mob motivated by an misleading screed to make the IETF change direction? I certainly hope not because, as you said previously, think what advantage large companies would be able to take of it. From the sample of the FSF letters I read, many of the people writing didn't know the difference between Redphone and Red Hat, Yeah, that was briefly amusing, as was the ones that wanted to stop the standardization of TLS because of this patent. Amusing at first, that is, then quite annoying. and if as many as two of them had even looked at the draft or IPR disclosure in question, it'd be a lot. I think I spotted five that seemed to be somewhat informed. But even those didn't do any sort of analysis of the disclosure or the patent application to back up their assertions. The FSF's absolutist position on patents was set in stone 20 years ago. I don't see why we should be impressed if they occasionally throw a handful of pebbles at us. More to the point, the IETF IPR policy may be spot on or it may be a steaming pile of crap, but this mail bombardment by the FSF proves nothing either way. FWIW, I'm not happy with the current policy, but most of the sketches of alternatives I've seen don't seem like changes for the better. Perhaps if they were fully worked out in the form of a draft and all the loose ends were tied off I'd change my mind. Ned ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Proposal to create IETF IPR Advisory Board
Paul Hoffman wants: In this case, worked-out means a document that describes the the current solution, the advantages and disadvantages of it, a proposal for a new solution, and a transition plan. Paul, I'm not sure what more you're asking for at this stage. This list is lively with suggestions, convincing me that IPR issues continue to dominate the IETF airwaves. A worked-out document would be premature in this context. One suggestion, now a specific topic on this list if you care to respond directly, is for the creation of an IETF IPR Advisory Board to help people everywhere--including thousands of disaffected FSF campaigners--to understand why certain patents (including the Redphone patent) are not worth worrying about. The charter would be: Answer IPR questions that are posed by other IETF working groups. The quality of its answers, as with any IETF working group, will be at least partly a function of the quality of its participants. This suggestion is perhaps the most important currently before us, because an IETF IPR Advisory Board will be able to stop FSF campaigns and other distractions before they start with facts instead of fiction. What would YOU suggest for a charter for such an Advisory Board to keep it from crossing into any forbidden areas? Or is it every man and woman for themselves in these patent-infested waters? /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243 Skype: LawrenceRosen -Original Message- From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:paul.hoff...@vpnc.org] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 3:20 PM To: lro...@rosenlaw.com; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Previous consensus on not changing patent policy (Re: References to Redphone's patent) At 2:11 PM -0800 2/16/09, Lawrence Rosen wrote: Let's forget the past; I acknowledge we lost that argument then among those few who bothered to hum. Many of us have heard this in various technical working groups when people who didn't get their way come back later. Such reconsiderations, particularly on topics of a non-protocol nature, are rarely embraced. We are humans with limited time and energy and focus. But are the 1,000 or so emails in recent days from the FSF campaign not a loud enough hum to recognize that our IPR policy is out of tune? No, it is a statement that a group of people who are not active in the IETF want us to spend our time and effort to fix a problem they feel that they have. This is not the first such open source campaign either. IETF needs a more sturdy process to deal with IPR issues. Please consider the suggestions now on the table. Where? I see no Internet Draft, nor any significant group of people who have said they are willing to work on the problem. Seriously, if this is a significant issue for this motivated group of people, they can do some research and write one (or probably more) Internet Drafts. The IETF has never been swayed by blitzes of a mailing list asking for us to do someone else's technical work; we should not be swayed by similar blitzes asking us to do their policy work. We are, however, amazingly (and sometime painfully) open to discussing worked-out solutions of either a technical or policy nature. In this case, worked-out means a document that describes the the current solution, the advantages and disadvantages of it, a proposal for a new solution, and a transition plan. --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
