Re: Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)
C. M. Heard wrote: On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Eric Rosen wrote: There are also other reasons why I find this proposed experiment disheartening. For one thing, it really misses the point. We need to simplify our processes, not make them more complicated. Either we need the downref rule or we don't. If we want to experiment, let's experiment with eliminating the rule entirely, not with fine tuning it. The real underlying problem of course is the the multi-stage standards process is just a relic from another time, and makes no sense at all in the current environment. Experiments in fine tuning the process are nothing but a distraction. For the record, I completely agree with the above sentiments (and have so stated on the newtrk mailing list). I'd like to ask people who *don't* agree with the above sentiments (i.e. who support this experimental process change) to say so, before the Last Call ends in two days. (Obviously, people who *do* agree are welcome to say so too, but a problem with Last Calls is that it's very hard to judge whether silence means consent.) Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)
--On Monday, 12 June, 2006 12:20 +0200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The real underlying problem of course is the the multi-stage standards process is just a relic from another time, and makes no sense at all in the current environment. Experiments in fine tuning the process are nothing but a distraction. For the record, I completely agree with the above sentiments (and have so stated on the newtrk mailing list). I'd like to ask people who *don't* agree with the above sentiments (i.e. who support this experimental process change) to say so, before the Last Call ends in two days. (Obviously, people who *do* agree are welcome to say so too, but a problem with Last Calls is that it's very hard to judge whether silence means consent.) FWIW, I still think the approach in the draft is a good idea given that... (1) We have not been able to get consensus eliminating a multistep standard process. For reasons explained elsewhere, I personally consider that eliminating that process would be a bad idea, but that is another discussion. The present reality is that we don't have that consensus and that blocking incremental improvements within it is a strange form of see if we can make things worse so as to build momentum for a more basic change. I don't believe in that style of doing things. (2) We have had repeated claims that the downref issue is a major cause of perceived IETF slowness in getting documents out and, especially, of getting documents to advanced maturity level. I think that validating (or invalidating) those claims would be helpful as a goal in itself. If it results in a significant number of documents being advanced, that would be a good thing. If it results in few or no documents being advanced, then we know that particular argument is not a significant part of the picture, and that would, itself, be useful. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)
I think this experiment is a good idea. While we have discussed throwing out the whole structure, we have not agreed to do so. (I happen to not like the 1-step proposals, but that is not the point.) Whether we eventually throw out the whole thing or not, in teh mean time this improves our current procedures in a sensible fashion. Yours, Joel M. Halpern At 06:20 AM 6/12/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote: C. M. Heard wrote: On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Eric Rosen wrote: There are also other reasons why I find this proposed experiment disheartening. For one thing, it really misses the point. We need to simplify our processes, not make them more complicated. Either we need the downref rule or we don't. If we want to experiment, let's experiment with eliminating the rule entirely, not with fine tuning it. The real underlying problem of course is the the multi-stage standards process is just a relic from another time, and makes no sense at all in the current environment. Experiments in fine tuning the process are nothing but a distraction. For the record, I completely agree with the above sentiments (and have so stated on the newtrk mailing list). I'd like to ask people who *don't* agree with the above sentiments (i.e. who support this experimental process change) to say so, before the Last Call ends in two days. (Obviously, people who *do* agree are welcome to say so too, but a problem with Last Calls is that it's very hard to judge whether silence means consent.) 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: Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)
--On Monday, 12 June, 2006 12:20 +0200 Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The real underlying problem of course is the the multi-stage standards process is just a relic from another time, and makes no sense at all in the current environment. Experiments in fine tuning the process are nothing but a distraction. For the record, I completely agree with the above sentiments (and have so stated on the newtrk mailing list). I'd like to ask people who *don't* agree with the above sentiments (i.e. who support this experimental process change) to say so, before the Last Call ends in two days. (Obviously, people who *do* agree are welcome to say so too, but a problem with Last Calls is that it's very hard to judge whether silence means consent.) FWIW, I still think the approach in the draft is a good idea given that... (1) We have not been able to get consensus eliminating a multistep standard process. For reasons explained elsewhere, I personally consider that eliminating that process would be a bad idea, but that is another discussion. The present reality is that we don't have that consensus and that blocking incremental improvements within it is a strange form of see if we can make things worse so as to build momentum for a more basic change. I don't believe in that style of doing things. (2) We have had repeated claims that the downref issue is a major cause of perceived IETF slowness in getting documents out and, especially, of getting documents to advanced maturity level. I think that validating (or invalidating) those claims would be helpful as a goal in itself. If it results in a significant number of documents being advanced, that would be a good thing. If it results in few or no documents being advanced, then we know that particular argument is not a significant part of the picture, and that would, itself, be useful. I agree with both of these points. One signs of a good experiment is that you learn something from it no matter what the outcome. I see nothing but upside here and fully support running this process experiment. Ned ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, John C Klensin wrote: FWIW, I still think the approach in the draft is a good idea given that... (1) We have not been able to get consensus eliminating a multistep standard process. For reasons explained elsewhere, I personally consider that eliminating that process would be a bad idea, but that is another discussion. The present reality is that we don't have that consensus and that blocking incremental improvements within it is a strange form of see if we can make things worse so as to build momentum for a more basic change. I don't believe in that style of doing things. (2) We have had repeated claims that the downref issue is a major cause of perceived IETF slowness in getting documents out and, especially, of getting documents to advanced maturity level. I think that validating (or invalidating) those claims would be helpful as a goal in itself. If it results in a significant number of documents being advanced, that would be a good thing. If it results in few or no documents being advanced, then we know that particular argument is not a significant part of the picture, and that would, itself, be useful. FWIW, I also agree with these and that running the experiment is a good idea. I don't think I'd want to eliminate downref rule completely, but this would seem to allow explicit acknowledgement and/or justification of each downref, which would seem like a good enough for an experiment and not that much work. -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. If the individual submission is approved as an Experimental RFC, does that mean that the IETF will adopt the proposed experiment? If so, I don't think this draft should be approved. (Actually, I suspect the fix is in, but for the record ...) The proposal seems primarily intended to deal with the following problem. Sometimes there are cases in which a doc is ready to become a DS, but cannot, because of the infamous downref rule, which states that no DS can normatively reference a PS. The proposal leaves the downref rule in place, but allows it to be waived if the WG is willing to approve derogatory text about the referenced technology: A note is included in the reference text that indicates that the reference is to a document of a lower maturity level, that some caution should be used since it may be less stable than the document from which it is being referenced, Frankly, I think this wavier procedure is outrageous, and entirely unacceptable. The fact The fact that the referenced document has not gone through some bureaucratic process does not mean that it is any less stable, or that any more caution is required in its use. Inserting this derogatory language about technology which may be well-proven and widely deployed will be extremely misleading to the industry. I think that any rule which requires us to insert false and misleading statements in the documents should be strongly opposed. Even worse: The IESG may, at its discretion, specify the exact text to be used Great, not only is the WG required to denigrate its own technology, but the IESG is given free rein to insert whatever derogatory remarks they feel like putting in. Of course, we'll be told not to worry, since: If members of the community consider either the downward reference or the annotation text to be inappropriate, those issues can be raised at any time in the document life cycle, just as with any other text in the document. Great. Another useless thing to argue about in the WG, and another useless thing to argue about with the IESG. There are also other reasons why I find this proposed experiment disheartening. For one thing, it really misses the point. We need to simplify our processes, not make them more complicated. Either we need the downref rule or we don't. If we want to experiment, let's experiment with eliminating the rule entirely, not with fine tuning it. The real underlying problem of course is the the multi-stage standards process is just a relic from another time, and makes no sense at all in the current environment. Experiments in fine tuning the process are nothing but a distraction. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)
--On Thursday, 01 June, 2006 10:49 -0400 Eric Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. If the individual submission is approved as an Experimental RFC, does that mean that the IETF will adopt the proposed experiment? If so, I don't think this draft should be approved. (Actually, I suspect the fix is in, but for the record ...) Actually, Eric, I don't have any idea what you are talking about. IETF doesn't adopt protocol experiments, regardless of how they are approved (some unfortunate language about process experiments, which are really quite different, notwithstanding). Of course, since individual submissions (as distinct from independent ones) are processed, and in that sense approved, by the IESG, the IESG can presumably pay as much or at little attention to them as they think the community finds appropriate. But that still has little or nothing to do with this draft. This draft is addressed primarily --almost exclusively-- to publication of documents describing standards-track protocols, not experimental or informational pieces. The proposal seems primarily intended to deal with the following problem. Sometimes there are cases in which a doc is ready to become a DS, but cannot, because of the infamous downref rule, which states that no DS can normatively reference a PS. That is correct. The proposal leaves the downref rule in place, but allows it to be waived if the WG is willing to approve derogatory text about the referenced technology: A note is included in the reference text that indicates that the reference is to a document of a lower maturity level, that some caution should be used since it may be less stable than the document from which it is being referenced, Until and unless the definitions of maturity levels are changed, that text is not derogatory, but a simply statement of fact. It carefully says may be less stable, which is true. Now, if it said ...caution should be used because the referenced document is incomplete and a piece of c**p, _that_ would be derogatory. But no such implication is present. Frankly, I think this wavier procedure is outrageous, and entirely unacceptable. The fact The fact that the referenced document has not gone through some bureaucratic process does not mean that it is any less stable, or that any more caution is required in its use. Inserting this derogatory language about technology which may be well-proven and widely deployed will be extremely misleading to the industry. If a WG agrees with you about a particular piece of technology, they have three choices: (i) Do nothing, in which case their would-be Draft Standard will sit in queue until that well-proven and widely -deployed technology is, itself, advanced to Draft Standard (or to not try to advance their Proposed Standard to Draft Standard at all). (ii) Pick up the obviously well-documented definition of the well-proven and widely deployed technology and advance it to Draft Standard. (iii) Invoke the RFC 3967 procedure for downrefs, which is more burdensome in terms of processing than the new proposal, but does not involve disclaimers. You can think of the RFC 3967 procedure as requiring a community determination that the referenced technology is stable enough to be referenced in a document of a given maturity level. So the proposed new rule adds one option to the three that are there already. It is up to the WG (or individual submitter) which one to use. This one is intended to be much more lightweight and quick than any of the existing options, but no one is forcing its use. And I assume that, if it is found too unpleasant or derogatory, then no one will use it and it will disappear after a year. Personally, that wouldn't bother me one bit -- you will recall that I have proposed and/or backed much more radical and extensive solutions to this type of problem -- but that is a rather different discussion. I think that any rule which requires us to insert false and misleading statements in the documents should be strongly opposed. But there is no requirement that this procedure be used at all. If I writing a document that needed to reference a specification that was as well-defined, mature, and stable as you posit, I'd first try to get that specification advanced to the right maturity level or, if there was some bar to doing so, I'd invoke the RFC 3697 procedure. Or I might try to build consensus for some serious discussion and action on draft-ietf-newtrk-promotion-00.txt, which essentially proposes fast-tracking the advancement of such specifications on the basis of their marketplace acceptance (and which is showing signs of vanishing
Re: Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)
that text is not derogatory, but a simply statement of fact. Sorry, but however you may try to talk your way out of it, a statement like that technology may be unstable is derogatory. Until and unless the definitions of maturity levels are changed, that text is not derogatory, but a simply statement of fact. I'm afraid that the facts as to whether a technology is stable are in no way dependent on the IETF's definitions of maturity levels. If a WG agrees with you about a particular piece of technology, they have three choices: Well, 4: they can issue the doc as a PS obsoleting the old PS. If I writing a document that needed to reference a specification that was as well-defined, mature, and stable as you posit, I'd first try to get that specification advanced to the right maturity level That's an interesting fact about yourself, but personally I'd prefer to spend my time doing something useful. But the assertion you are making about a (e.g.) Proposed Standard specification being stable, mature, well-defined, widely-deployed, etc., is one that presumably should get some community review Sure. The WG should not advance a doc to DS if it really depends on something which isn't stable. The WG needs to be aware of the facts, and should not be compelled to insert statements which they know to be false. you should support this on your theory that it will create more arguments and bog things down further. No, I don't think there's any need to do anything that creates more arguments and bogs things down further. I understand that there's no consensus on how to avoid the iceberg, but that doesn't mean I want to take the time to run experiments on more complicated ways to arrange the deck chairs. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Last Call: 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling' to Experimental RFC (draft-klensin-norm-ref)
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'A Process Experiment in Normative Reference Handling ' draft-klensin-norm-ref-01.txt as an Experimental RFC This is a proposed process experiment under RFC 3933. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-06-14. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-norm-ref-01.txt ___ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
