RE: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
Brian, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to which of the steps we are currently working on. Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm none. This is - IMO - the basis for the apparent stodgy resistance to change. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter -- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:36 AM -- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: -- Consensus based on reading tea leaves] -- -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: -- -- -- --On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- -- The only thing I am sure about is -- that -- consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly -- as it is. -- -- -- I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus. -- -- I do, however, see a rather strong -- consensus-of-the-speakers against -- using MS-Word document format for anything official. -- -- I think we need to tackle this whole issue, if we do decide to -- tackle it, in a much more systematic way. -- -- - what are our functional requirements? -- - which of them are not met today? -- - what are the possible solutions, and what is their practical --and operational cost? -- - which, if any, solutions should we adopt, on what timescale? -- -- I believe that if we took a systematic approach like that, the issue -- of how we determine consensus would be broken into enough small -- steps that it really wouldn't be an issue. -- -- 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: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
I agree. As usual we seem to be stuck in an infinite loop on this mailing list with the cycle being somewhere between 6 months and 3 years. Eliot Gray, Eric wrote: Brian, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to which of the steps we are currently working on. Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm none. This is - IMO - the basis for the apparent stodgy resistance to change. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter -- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:36 AM -- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: -- Consensus based on reading tea leaves] -- -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: -- -- -- --On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- -- The only thing I am sure about is -- that -- consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly -- as it is. -- -- -- I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus. -- -- I do, however, see a rather strong -- consensus-of-the-speakers against -- using MS-Word document format for anything official. -- -- I think we need to tackle this whole issue, if we do decide to -- tackle it, in a much more systematic way. -- -- - what are our functional requirements? -- - which of them are not met today? -- - what are the possible solutions, and what is their practical --and operational cost? -- - which, if any, solutions should we adopt, on what timescale? -- -- I believe that if we took a systematic approach like that, the issue -- of how we determine consensus would be broken into enough small -- steps that it really wouldn't be an issue. -- -- 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
I wonder if that time frame represents the amount of critical mass turnover for these topics to be refreshed, but previous discussion forgotten. I don't know if there is something that would fulfill this roll, but from 40 feet back, here is a suggestion. A bulletin board (Not BBS, but like an old cork one). Take what Brian said, that we need to look at this in sections. True. Take what Eric said, we are doing that, but different people at different times at different sections. True. Wouldn't it be nice to compartmentalize some of these systematic functions, but still keep them as neighbors so that if someone wants to talk about _requirements_, you step over and look at that section, and all the notes that people have stuck to the board. If someone wants to look at _solutions_ they look there. If they just want an overview, they glance at the whole thing. If people think an idea is not great, it gets stuck to the bottom, if it is well liked by many, then it bubbles up to the top (allowing many to bubble up or down). The reasons could be discussed on the list, but the result might end up on the board. What is nice is that if we just shrug our shoulders and walk away from it, we can come back to it in .5-3 years time and look back at this simple cork board rather than spilling through mounds of mail archives. I think (after watching the IETF for a while) that a fair amount of time is spent rehashing good ideas (and bad ones). Maybe a cork board that a newcomer could come up to, see the note, see the notes about the note would be useful. (Think persistance of knowledge in the new-comers orientation information presented at each IETF). Again, I'm just tossing this out there as a brainstorm idea. I think the problem (ID-Format) is real. I think it is solvable. I think we have too many great brains jumping around the systematic process of solving it, thus spending time on thought swapping and bringing newcomers up to speed. In other words, an e-mail list might not be the best way to solve the problem, and an e-mail archive might not be the best way to keep the summary knowledge around and accessible for newcomers to the task. --Brett I agree. As usual we seem to be stuck in an infinite loop on this mailing list with the cycle being somewhere between 6 months and 3 years. Eliot Gray, Eric wrote: Brian, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to which of the steps we are currently working on. Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm none. This is - IMO - the basis for the apparent stodgy resistance to change. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter -- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:36 AM -- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: -- Consensus based on reading tea leaves] -- -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: -- -- -- --On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- -- The only thing I am sure about is -- that -- consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly -- as it is. -- -- -- I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus. -- -- I do, however, see a rather strong -- consensus-of-the-speakers against -- using MS-Word document format for anything official. -- -- I think we need to tackle this whole issue, if we do decide to -- tackle it, in a much more systematic way. -- -- - what are our functional requirements? -- - which of them are not met today? -- - what are the possible solutions, and what is their practical --and operational cost? -- - which, if any, solutions should we adopt, on what timescale? -- -- I believe that if we took a systematic approach like that, the issue -- of how we determine consensus would be broken into enough small -- steps that it really wouldn't be an issue. -- -- 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 -- Please note that my e-mail address has changed. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
Gray, Eric wrote: Brian, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to which of the steps we are currently working on. Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm none. That is not true, we don't address the need to include diagrams. - Stewart. This is - IMO - the basis for the apparent stodgy resistance to change. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter -- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:36 AM -- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: -- Consensus based on reading tea leaves] -- -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: -- -- -- --On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- -- The only thing I am sure about is -- that -- consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly -- as it is. -- -- -- I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus. -- -- I do, however, see a rather strong -- consensus-of-the-speakers against -- using MS-Word document format for anything official. -- -- I think we need to tackle this whole issue, if we do decide to -- tackle it, in a much more systematic way. -- -- - what are our functional requirements? -- - which of them are not met today? -- - what are the possible solutions, and what is their practical --and operational cost? -- - which, if any, solutions should we adopt, on what timescale? -- -- I believe that if we took a systematic approach like that, the issue -- of how we determine consensus would be broken into enough small -- steps that it really wouldn't be an issue. -- -- 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 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
Eliot Lear wrote: I agree. As usual we seem to be stuck in an infinite loop on this mailing list with the cycle being somewhere between 6 months and 3 years. The fact that we keep coming back to this topic may be a message in itself! - Stewart Eliot Gray, Eric wrote: Brian, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to which of the steps we are currently working on. Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm "none." This is - IMO - the basis for the apparent stodgy resistance to change. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter -- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:36 AM -- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: -- Consensus based on reading tea leaves] -- -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: -- -- -- --On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- -- The only thing I am sure about is -- that -- consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly -- as it is. -- -- -- I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus. -- -- I do, however, see a rather strong -- consensus-of-the-speakers against -- using MS-Word document format for anything "official". -- -- I think we need to tackle this whole issue, if we do decide to -- tackle it, in a much more systematic way. -- -- - what are our functional requirements? -- - which of them are not met today? -- - what are the possible solutions, and what is their practical --and operational cost? -- - which, if any, solutions should we adopt, on what timescale? -- -- I believe that if we took a systematic approach like that, the issue -- of how we determine consensus would be broken into enough small -- steps that it really wouldn't be an issue. -- -- 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 ___ 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: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
Stewart Bryant wrote: Eliot Lear wrote: I agree. As usual we seem to be stuck in an infinite loop on this mailing list with the cycle being somewhere between 6 months and 3 years. The fact that we keep coming back to this topic may be a message in itself! It reminds me of a pick your favorite special interest lobby who continually wants change, even if the rest of us don't. Either eventually we get convinced or we don't, but in the process we sure get an earful. Eliot ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm none. At some level that's clearly true, since RFCs are emerging at a brisk clip. I've seen two different sets of concerns. One is that ASCII doesn't permit adequately beautiful pictures. If that's the problem to be solved, it seems to me that a straightforward solution would be to allow authors to submit image files along with the ASCII text. I'd suggest requiring that the image format be GIF, since it's simple, stable, well documented, widely supported in both freeware and commercial software, and the patents have expired. (Or maybe PNG, any stable public format will do.) The other is that the editorial process is more tedious than it needs to be, because RFCs have a mandatory structure that plain ASCII doesn't express. RFC 2629 or 2629bis captures the structure while being well supported in free and commercial software and, in a pinch, legible without tools since it's ASCII underneath. This confirms to me that what we need to decide is what the problem is, since the solutions to each problem are straighforward. R's, John PS: I gather that clay is quite stable if properly fired, and is probably less subject to chipping and acid rain pitting than marble. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
Stewart, Of course it is. I think virtually everyone would like to live in a perfect world and most of us recognize that this is not it. Therefore, it is clear that - whatever we might say in any particular argument - we all want things to get better. Consequently, proposals to change what is will always be a recurring event. The question we really have to ask - as dissected by Brian in some detail - is whether or not a specific proposal is enough better than what we have already (assuming that what we have already is both under- stood and used appropriately) to overcome the steady-state friction typically used to prevent change for the sake of marginal gain with an unquantifiable risk for unanticipated side effects. -- Eric From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:22 PM To: Eliot Lear Cc: Gray, Eric; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves] Eliot Lear wrote: I agree. As usual we seem to be stuck in an infinite loop on this mailing list with the cycle being somewhere between 6 months and 3 years. The fact that we keep coming back to this topic may be a message in itself! - Stewart Eliot Gray, Eric wrote: Brian, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to which of the steps we are currently working on. Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm none. This is - IMO - the basis for the apparent stodgy resistance to change. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter -- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:36 AM -- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: -- Consensus based on reading tea leaves] -- -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: -- -- -- --On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- -- The only thing I am sure about is -- that -- consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly -- as it is. -- -- -- I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus. -- -- I do, however, see a rather strong -- consensus-of-the-speakers against -- using MS-Word document format for anything official. -- -- I think we need to tackle this whole issue, if we do decide to -- tackle it, in a much more systematic way. -- -- - what are our functional requirements? -- - which of them are not met today? -- - what are the possible solutions, and what is their practical --and operational cost? -- - which, if any, solutions should we adopt, on what timescale? -- -- I believe that if we took a systematic approach like that, the issue -- of how we determine consensus would be broken into enough small -- steps that it really wouldn't be an issue. -- -- Brian -- -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list
RE: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
Stewart, I didn't want to go through all the RFCs to find a specific example, but I distinctly recall seeing an RFC at one point that had figures which contained only the text see associated PS version. However, I know I can't expect anyone to take my word for it. However, there was an easy way to get around that. I simply ftp'd all 48 of the RFCs that are available in PS format. I am still somewhat at a loss to understand why there are none in PDF, but the observation that other formats may be used obviously still stands. The very first RFC available in PS was RFC 1119. Surprisingly enough, the entire contents of the ASCII version is as follows: 'RFC-1119 Network Time Protocol (Version 2) Specification and Implementation is available only in PostScript form in the file RFC1119.PS' So, what exactly are we arguing about? :-) -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 1:19 PM -- To: Gray, Eric -- Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'; Harald Tveit Alvestrand; ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag -- [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves] -- -- Gray, Eric wrote: -- -- Brian, -- --I think it is somewhat unfair to say that we have -- not tried the steps you outline below. Where we run into -- trouble is when different sets of people disagree as to -- which of the steps we are currently working on. -- --Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second -- step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with -- a firm none. -- -- -- -- That is not true, we don't address the need to include diagrams. -- -- - Stewart. -- --This is - IMO - the basis for the apparent stodgy -- resistance to change. -- -- -- -- Eric -- -- -- -Original Message- -- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter -- -- Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:36 AM -- -- To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand -- -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- -- Subject: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: -- -- Consensus based on reading tea leaves] -- -- -- -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: -- -- -- -- -- -- --On mandag, januar 02, 2006 18:10:15 +0200 Yaakov Stein -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- -- -- -- The only thing I am sure about is -- -- that -- -- consensus on this list is for keeping everything exactly -- -- as it is. -- -- -- -- -- -- I'm pretty sure there's no such consensus. -- -- -- -- I do, however, see a rather strong -- -- consensus-of-the-speakers against -- -- using MS-Word document format for anything official. -- -- -- -- I think we need to tackle this whole issue, if we do decide to -- -- tackle it, in a much more systematic way. -- -- -- -- - what are our functional requirements? -- -- - which of them are not met today? -- -- - what are the possible solutions, and what is their practical -- --and operational cost? -- -- - which, if any, solutions should we adopt, on what timescale? -- -- -- -- I believe that if we took a systematic approach like -- that, the issue -- -- of how we determine consensus would be broken into enough small -- -- steps that it really wouldn't be an issue. -- -- -- -- 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 -- -- -- -- -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Engineering our way out of a brown paper bag [Re: Consensus b ased on reading tea leaves]
On Jan 5, 2006, at 11:31 AM, John Levine wrote: Quite frankly, I believe we can address the second step (which of the requirements are not met today?) with a firm none. One is that ASCII doesn't permit adequately beautiful pictures. If that's the problem to be solved, it seems to me that a straightforward solution would be to allow authors to submit image files along with the ASCII text. I'd suggest requiring that the image format be GIF, since it's simple, stable, well documented, widely supported in both freeware and commercial software, and the patents have expired. (Or maybe PNG, any stable public format will do.) A minor problem with independent graphic files is they are difficult to manage. A graphic image has also become a vehicle for Trojans, as file extensions often do not take precedence within rendering engines. This would impose a new risk for the editor. An interim solution could be a drawing application (or a regular editor) that uses Unicode Box Drawing characters rather than ACSII hyphens, under-score, plus symbols, greater-than, less-than, and vertical bars. For these to provide a clean output, the line spacing would need to be controlled for a clean look. This can be done using HTML and PDF outputs. The other is that the editorial process is more tedious than it needs to be, because RFCs have a mandatory structure that plain ASCII doesn't express. RFC 2629 or 2629bis captures the structure while being well supported in free and commercial software and, in a pinch, legible without tools since it's ASCII underneath. These tools can already utilize the Box Drawing characters, so a utillity to assist with the creation of the box drawings would make this less painful. The utility could also add the needed XML wrapper to make this an easy cut and paste. If desired, these characters could be translated back into the ASCII equivalent for the ASCII version. It would also seem that bibliography and author names could also include a Unicode element used by the HTML and PDF outputs, but then not the ASCII versions. The alternative elements for titles and authors would be assuming a desire to retain the ASCII only version. If the ASCII version is not retained, then the effort would be even more straight forward. -Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
