Re: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF]
On 11/16/2012 12:27 AM, John Levine wrote: Shall we move on? Sure. Since we agree that there is no way to pay for the extra costs involved in meeting in places where there are insignificant numbers of IETF participants, it won't happen, and we're done. I wonder how you measure/count IETF participants... Do you measure participants based on subscriptions to IETF mailing-lists? -- If so, how do you assign a location to the plenty of gTLD addresses? (including those at gmail.com) Do you measure participants based on subscriptions to mailing-lists *and* whether they actually get to post to the mailing-lists? Or do you count as participants those that write documents and/or send feedback about documents? etc.. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
Re: [lisp] Last Call: draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt (LISP EID Block) to Informational RFC
I want to thank everyone who has provided feedback on this draft. Given the issues raised, I am sending the draft back to the LISP WG for additional work. I encourage folks interested in this draft to participate on the LISP mailing list. Regards, Brian On 11/13/12 9:45 AM, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol WG (lisp) to consider the following document: - 'LISP EID Block' draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block-03.txt as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-11-27. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This is a direction to IANA to allocate a /16 IPv6 prefix for use with the Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). The prefix will be used for local intra-domain routing and global endpoint identification, by sites deploying LISP as EID (Endpoint IDentifier) addressing space. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lisp-eid-block/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. ___ lisp mailing list l...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
Re: A Splendid Example Of A Renumbering Disaster
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Benson Schliesser wrote: I expect to be flamed for suggesting it, but why not use the Shared Address Space for this purpose? (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598) You can't, if carriers are assigning you that IP range. You'd still get a conflict if you use it for your own VPN range, as the inner address cannot be in the same subnet as the outer address (whether in tunnel mode, or when using transport mode with L2TP) Paul
Re: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF]
I wonder how you measure/count IETF participants... Do you measure participants based on subscriptions to IETF mailing-lists? -- If so, how do you assign a location to the plenty of gTLD addresses? (including those at gmail.com) I'm guessing based on the mail I see on the lists I'm on and the drafts I look at. I really don't think there's a vast group of Latin Americans or south Asians or Africans lurking behind gmail addresses. As I think I've said many times, I think it would be great if we got more activity from underrepresented parts of the world, but the way to do that is to get people active on mailing lists and writing drafts, not to have unaffordable ICANN-style road shows. Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY I dropped the toothpaste, said Tom, crestfallenly.
Re: Newcomers [Was: Evolutionizing the IETF]
Responses to a couple of points that people have made: From: t.p. daedu...@btconnect.com I started, some years ago, with a meeting, because the culture that I was used to was that conferences, be they annual or triannual, were where things really happened and that e-mail filled in the gaps in between (and I think that this remains the case in other, related, fora). That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work, and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says This is all true. Any decision come to during a meeting session must be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list. The reason for this is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending the meetings and paying the associated expenses. From: Carlos M. Martinez carlosm3...@gmail.com The feeling I kept receiving here is that there is a kernel of IETFers who still believe that IETF is some kind of ivory tower that exists by itself, for itself and is self-sufficient. First, I think you are not using the correct term. Ivory tower is used specifically to mean an excessively academic or theoretical approach. In the IETF's case, it is considerably more practical and hands-on than other organizations. In particular, contrast can be drawn with the ITU's OSI networking protocols. I think a better term for the concept is insular, meaning isolated or island-like. The IETF is one more component of the complex ecosystem of Internet governance. However, I think you are correct in that the IETF is insular, that it does not concern itself much with other parts of the ecosystem of Internet governance. Partly this is historical, in that there wasn't much Internet governance when the IETF was founded. And for a long, formative period (15 years or so), the only other global element of the networking world was the ITU's OSI effort, which was directly competitive. But to a considerable degree, the IETF confines itself to aspects of networking which do not greatly intersect with Internet governance. We design and implement protocols. The connection with the larger ecosystem is more done by the Internet Society. - What is a reasonable goal in terms of participation, so that having a meeting in Latin America is actually meaningful?: X attendees from the region and Y people actively participating in mailing lists and contributing text Success can probably be judged simply by attendance numbers -- does the meeting have an attendance at least as large as meetings in more traditional places (within statistical error)? - After that, set the goal: The IETF will hold a meeting in Latin America in the next four to five years - What does the IETF to do that?: The IETF needs partners to pledge X $ in sponsorship funds, or whatever else. As far as I can tell from others' postings: A venue needs to be found that has adequate space and tolerance of our networking needs. Sponsors need to be found to cover the costs that the standard meeting fee will not cover. The typical attendee budget (air fare, hotel, meeting) needs to be no higher than in traditional locations. (This can probably be ensured with sufficient sponsor support.) Air travel to the location should not be substantially longer or inconvenient than to traditional locations (because employers consider employee's time to be more expensive than direct expenses). Dale
IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote: That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work, and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says This is all true. Any decision come to during a meeting session must be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list. The reason for this is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending the meetings and paying the associated expenses. This brings up a question that I have as an AD: A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the document history for... to find that there's basically no history. We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at all. The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero and two responses (which say It's ready.), and then it's sent to the responsible AD requesting publication. When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was discussed in the face-to-face meetings. A look in the minutes of a few meetings shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes show little or none of the discussion. We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has broad consensus of the working group. So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence. Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-) Barry, Applications AD
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit : So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? no. Our work is done both on mailing lists and f2f meetings. As co-chair of a few wg, we have been doing great progress during f2f meeting with high-bandwidth interactions. so document shepherd and AD should exercise judgement on how to see the community consensus/participation. Marc. I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence. Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-) Barry, Applications AD
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On 11/27/12 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote: That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work, and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says This is all true. Any decision come to during a meeting session must be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list. The reason for this is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending the meetings and paying the associated expenses. This brings up a question that I have as an AD: A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the document history for... to find that there's basically no history. We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at all. There are v6ops wg documents that have arrived in the IESG queue with more than 1000 messages associated with them... I'm not sure that is indicative of any entirely healthy wg mailing list process but it does leave behind a lot of evidence. even if all these things were healthy it seems like the actual outcomes would be wildly divergent given varying levels of interest. The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero and two responses (which say It's ready.), and then it's sent to the responsible AD requesting publication. When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was discussed in the face-to-face meetings. A look in the minutes of a few meetings shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes show little or none of the discussion. We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has broad consensus of the working group. So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence. Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-) Barry, Applications AD
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? The issue isn't the lack of comments but any potential lack of opportunity to comment. If the document was announced on the list, prefably including ancillary about changes that have been made, and people chose not to comment there, then that's fine. But if information about the document wasn't made available - as is sometimes the case if the document isn't named under the WG - then that's a problem. Ned
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
- Original Message - From: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org To: IETF discussion list ietf@ietf.org Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:00 PM On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote: That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work, and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says This is all true. Any decision come to during a meeting session must be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list. The reason for this is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending the meetings and paying the associated expenses. This brings up a question that I have as an AD: A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the document history for... to find that there's basically no history. We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at all. The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero and two responses (which say It's ready.), and then it's sent to the responsible AD requesting publication. When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was discussed in the face-to-face meetings. A look in the minutes of a few meetings shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes show little or none of the discussion. We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has broad consensus of the working group. So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? Assuming that you are referring to I-Ds from a WG, then the WG chair is saying that the document has been reviewed enough for it to progress. The WG chair is appointed, in some sense of the word, by the ADs, past or present, for the Area in question. Thus what you seem to be asking is should you trust the people appointed by the ADs. Um, mostly yes, but then if you do push back, then that is an implicit criticism of the WG chair and/or ADs. In the WG in which I am active, I mostly do see push back from the WG Chair, that unless and until people speak up on the list, eg during Last Call, then the I-D in question is going nowhere - which I find healthy. If people continue not to speak up, well then perhaps it is time to close the WG, which is probably about right. Tom Petch I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence. Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-) Barry, Applications AD
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
I think the core issue is whether or not there's been adequate review, and it seems to me to be appropriate to request volunteers from wg participants to review documents before moving them along. Melinda
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:33:29PM +, t.p. wrote: Chair, that unless and until people speak up on the list, eg during Last Call, then the I-D in question is going nowhere - which I find healthy. I strongly agree with this. If people continue not to speak up, well then perhaps it is time to close the WG, which is probably about right. Even more with this. It's a _working_ group, not a _meeting_ group. If the work isn't getting done, shut it down. A -- Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On 28/11/2012, at 5:00 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote: That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work, and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says This is all true. Any decision come to during a meeting session must be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list. The reason for this is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending the meetings and paying the associated expenses. This brings up a question that I have as an AD: A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the document history for... to find that there's basically no history. We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at all. The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero and two responses (which say It's ready.), and then it's sent to the responsible AD requesting publication. When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was discussed in the face-to-face meetings. A look in the minutes of a few meetings shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes show little or none of the discussion. We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has broad consensus of the working group. So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? I do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of the community says: Very much so. if neither the mailing list or the minutes of the meetings are showing no visible activity then its reasonable to conclude that the document is not the product of an open consensus based activity, and the proponents behind the document, who presumably used other fora (presumably closed) to get their document up the the IESG. If the IESG rubber stamps this because its just an informational or well, the document shepherd claimed that it had been reviewed then the IESG is as derelict in its duty. If a document in WG last call gets no visible support on the WG mailing list then it should never head to the IESG, nor should the IESG publish to draft. Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? I do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of the community says: yes, of course. regards, Geoff
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
+1 --dmm On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Geoff Huston g...@apnic.net wrote: On 28/11/2012, at 5:00 AM, Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley wor...@ariadne.com wrote: That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work, and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says This is all true. Any decision come to during a meeting session must be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list. The reason for this is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending the meetings and paying the associated expenses. This brings up a question that I have as an AD: A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the document history for... to find that there's basically no history. We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at all. The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero and two responses (which say It's ready.), and then it's sent to the responsible AD requesting publication. When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was discussed in the face-to-face meetings. A look in the minutes of a few meetings shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes show little or none of the discussion. We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has broad consensus of the working group. So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? I do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of the community says: Very much so. if neither the mailing list or the minutes of the meetings are showing no visible activity then its reasonable to conclude that the document is not the product of an open consensus based activity, and the proponents behind the document, who presumably used other fora (presumably closed) to get their document up the the IESG. If the IESG rubber stamps this because its just an informational or well, the document shepherd claimed that it had been reviewed then the IESG is as derelict in its duty. If a document in WG last call gets no visible support on the WG mailing list then it should never head to the IESG, nor should the IESG publish to draft. Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? I do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of the community says: yes, of course. regards, Geoff
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: ... So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence. Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-) Barry, I find myself agreeing with Geoff and Andrew in thinking that answer should usually be yes, push back. However, I think that unusual situations do occur and that different WGs, sometimes for good reason, have different styles. As usual, I favor good sense over the rigidity of process purity. So a suggestion: If a WG expects you the IESG to sign off on a document based primarily on meeting list discussions, two conditions should be met: (i) the minutes had better be sufficiently detailed to be persuasive that there really was review and that the document really is a WG product, not just that of a few authors (or organizations) and (ii) there has to be a clear opportunity, after the minutes appear (and Jabber logs, etc., are available) for people on the mailing list to comment on the presumed meeting decision. I don't believe that more specific guidelines for either of those conditions are necessary or desirable other than to say that it is the obligation of the WG and its chairs/shepherds to present evidence that it persuasive to an IESG that out to be skeptical. Speaking for myself only, of course. john
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
Hi Barry, At 10:00 27-11-2012, Barry Leiba wrote: We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has broad consensus of the working group. :-) So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? A working group would be using consensus by apathy if there isn't any mailing discussion or any trace of discussions in the minutes. The alternatives are to push back or shut down the working group. Regards, -sm
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: ... So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence. Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-) Barry, I find myself agreeing with Geoff and Andrew in thinking that answer should usually be yes, push back. However, I think that unusual situations do occur and that different WGs, sometimes for good reason, have different styles. As usual, I favor good sense over the rigidity of process purity. So a suggestion: If a WG expects you the IESG to sign off on a document based primarily on meeting list discussions, two conditions should be met: (i) the minutes had better be sufficiently detailed to be persuasive that there really was review and that the document really is a WG product, not just that of a few authors (or organizations) and (ii) there has to be a clear opportunity, after the minutes appear (and Jabber logs, etc., are available) for people on the mailing list to comment on the presumed meeting decision. I don't believe that more specific guidelines for either of those conditions are necessary or desirable other than to say that it is the obligation of the WG and its chairs/shepherds to present evidence that it persuasive to an IESG that out to be skeptical. I agree, though I'd add the preference that the WGLC explicitly acknowledge the meeting notes as the record of discussion. Dave Morris
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On 11/27/2012 10:07 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote: Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit : So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? no. Our work is done both on mailing lists and f2f meetings. As co-chair of a few wg, we have been doing great progress during f2f meeting with high-bandwidth interactions. RFC2418 says that business happens in either place: ... All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of its business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to resolve specific issues and to direct future activities. ... Overall, WG *decisions* are supposed to be consensus of the WG, not just those who happen to be present at a given meeting, so I would expect that such decisions would be confirmed on the mailing list even if initiated at a meeting. At most meetings I've attended, this is how action items were confirmed. So my conclusion is that: - activity/participation can happen in either place - consensus should include mailing list confirmation YMMV. Joe so document shepherd and AD should exercise judgement on how to see the community consensus/participation. Marc. I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence. Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-) Barry, Applications AD
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
+1 John C Klensin wrote: --On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: ... So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence. Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-) Barry, I find myself agreeing with Geoff and Andrew in thinking that answer should usually be yes, push back. However, I think that unusual situations do occur and that different WGs, sometimes for good reason, have different styles. As usual, I favor good sense over the rigidity of process purity. So a suggestion: If a WG expects you the IESG to sign off on a document based primarily on meeting list discussions, two conditions should be met: (i) the minutes had better be sufficiently detailed to be persuasive that there really was review and that the document really is a WG product, not just that of a few authors (or organizations) and (ii) there has to be a clear opportunity, after the minutes appear (and Jabber logs, etc., are available) for people on the mailing list to comment on the presumed meeting decision. I don't believe that more specific guidelines for either of those conditions are necessary or desirable other than to say that it is the obligation of the WG and its chairs/shepherds to present evidence that it persuasive to an IESG that out to be skeptical. Speaking for myself only, of course. john -- HLS
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org wrote: A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the document history for... to find that there's basically no history. We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at all. The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero and two responses (which say It's ready.), and then it's sent to the responsible AD requesting publication. I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_ adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull until the deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a few, seemingly minor, edits for a version to be discussed. The meeting time is taken up listing changes, most of which get no discussion. Lather, rinse, repeat... After a few years, the WGCs tire of this, and issue a LastCall. Very few WG participants reply, mostly being careful not to rock the boat. The Document Editor, having other fish to fry by now, takes them under consideration until the next IETF week. The document gets on the agenda, but the story is pretty much indistinguishable from that of the previous paragraph. Hearing no vocal objections, a WGC dutifully writes up a shepherding report, saying broad consensus. The document goes to IETF LastCall, and gets some possibly less-gentle comments. Now it comes to the IESG members. When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was discussed in the face-to-face meetings. A look in the minutes of a few meetings shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes show little or none of the discussion. ... which is an honest reply by an overworked WGC. The very thought of re-opening discussion in the WG sends shivers up his/her spine! We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has broad consensus of the working group. (with several large grains of salt!) So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Speaking for myself, I very much want IESG members to push back on calling no-visible-discussion broad consensus. But understand, WGCs _don't_ want you to push back. And generally, neither do the Document Editors. They have followed the rules as they understood them. And they can point to a long list of RFCs that have followed essentially the same paradigm. Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? Understanding the dynamics of this paradigm, I wouldn't ask for that. But I do believe this is a bad way to run a railroad. There are WGs where the WGCs prepare status-of-drafts reports. I think such reports deserve to be formally presented to the Responsible AD; and that two cycles of no-significant-discussion on-list is a strong indicator that a new Document Editor is needed. Too often, the Document Editor is the author of the pre-adoption draft, and lacks any drive to make significant changes. (This is not an abuse if the WGC never calls consensus to change anything; but the Document Editors I consider good don't wait for a WGC declaration.) My point, essentially, is that some push-back is good, but it won't solve the problem: even WG LastCall is often too late to fix this. -- John Leslie j...@jlc.net
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
I generally agree with Joe. There should be discussion but the distribution of that discussion between meeting and mailing list is not significant; however, there must be sufficient opportunity for objection or additional comments on the mailing list and, in the case of discussion at a meeting, the meeting notes should be sufficiently details to give you a feeling for what discussion occurred. Thanks, Donald = Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: On 11/27/2012 10:07 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote: Le 2012-11-27 à 13:00, Barry Leiba a écrit : So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on those situations? Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed? no. Our work is done both on mailing lists and f2f meetings. As co-chair of a few wg, we have been doing great progress during f2f meeting with high-bandwidth interactions. RFC2418 says that business happens in either place: ... All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of its business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to resolve specific issues and to direct future activities. ... Overall, WG *decisions* are supposed to be consensus of the WG, not just those who happen to be present at a given meeting, so I would expect that such decisions would be confirmed on the mailing list even if initiated at a meeting. At most meetings I've attended, this is how action items were confirmed. So my conclusion is that: - activity/participation can happen in either place - consensus should include mailing list confirmation YMMV. Joe so document shepherd and AD should exercise judgement on how to see the community consensus/participation. Marc. I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence. Please be brief and polite, as you respond. :-) Barry, Applications AD
Last Call: draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08.txt (RTP payload format for Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW)) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Payloads WG (payload) to consider the following document: - 'RTP payload format for Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW)' draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw-08.txt as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the i...@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-12-11. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document specifies real-time transport protocol (RTP) payload formats to be used for the Enhanced Variable Rate Narrowband-Wideband Codec (EVRC-NW). Three media type registrations are included for EVRC-NW RTP payload formats. In addition, a file format is specified for transport of EVRC-NW speech data in storage mode applications such as e-mail. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-evrc-nw/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1766/
WG Action: Conclusion of Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (dccp)
The Datagram Congestion Control Protocol (dccp) working group in the Transport Area has concluded after having completed all of its chartered work. The IESG contact persons are Wesley Eddy and Martin Stiemerling. The DCCP mailing list (d...@ietf.org) will remain open in order to enable continued discussion among people that are implementing or using DCCP.
New Non-WG Mailing List: yaco-nomcom-tool -- Discussion of the Yaco / Nomcom Project
A new IETF non-working group email list has been created. List address: yaco-nomcom-t...@ietf.org Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yaco-nomcom-tool/ To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yaco-nomcom-tool Purpose: Discussion of the Yaco / Nomcom Project For additional information, please contact the list administrators.
