Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
-- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Noel Chiappa) Ah, I suspect that Elwyn was gently pulling your leg about your inability to spell "capital" (i.e. the death penalty) - "capitol" means "location of the government" Ahh haaadamn word...it'll pay for that...;) Now imagine if you looked up the word Capital in the dictionary and it read like this: Capital - Although not exhaustive,examples of the meaning of the word Capital include: Wealth in the form of money or property; Human resources considered in terms of their contributions to an economy; a city that is the center of a specific activity or industry; etc. Maybe some of our inaction comes from having policies thatare a little too open-ended.I don't like beinglocked into rulesbut maybe there are cases where we can't be so open ended (RISC vs. CISC?). Maybe if we made our operational policies specific and all-inclusive we wouldn't have to reinterpret them every time we went to use them. Then again maybe we want reinterpretation. Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
Now we're close to side veering off into process issues, but rather than going into that rat-hole, I'll just pose a question: do you think p2p protocol authors would have any motiviation to create a Security Considerations section that would pass IESG review? a security considerations section would be a breeze, compared to the pre-chartering hoops we regularly impose on new areas of work, especially any with a real security component, independent of prior work. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking http://bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
Robert Sayre writes: I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually trying to get work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the same way. Most of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, there are implementers whose support is valuable. The rest of the participants are valuable when they fix bugs. JFC doesn't seem to fix many bugs, and drives implementers away in droves, from what I can see. Which implementers are those? Implementers don't spend their time jabbering on discussion groups; they are too busy implementing. Analyze, specific, code, test, release. No need for chewing the fat on a mailing list in that process. And there are only so many hours in a day, so one can spend them doing things or spend them talking about doing things, but it's hard to manage both. It has been suggested that I be placed under RFC 3683 sanctions in the past, though I suppose the offending messages have always been in response to misconduct (not a justification). I don't think the IETF is in any danger of developing a trigger finger here. If all the time spent discussing this most useless of RFCs were dedicated to actually addressing real problems, what might be accomplished? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate on the humanity of capitol punishment? Can you imagine if, in every business meeting, people who disagreed decided to sue each other? Please, if you don't have an opinion specifically related to Jefsey then stay out of the Jefsey discussion. Please, if you don't have a discussion specifically related to the work of the IETF, then don't bring it up here. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
P2P protocols (Re: Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus)
--On 23. januar 2006 06:26 +0200 John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote: Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a chance of getting an RFC. Why not? Now we're close to side veering off into process issues, but rather than going into that rat-hole, I'll just pose a question: do you think p2p protocol authors would have any motiviation to create a Security Considerations section that would pass IESG review? let's veer off... this is much more fun than other current discussions :-) Since a major problem for illegal P2P networks at the moment is dealing with content that is inserted maliciously (the file named Britney Spears' latest hit that says THOU SHALT NOT STEAL in a thunderous voice), I think they have a large motivation for workable security models.. and I suspect that the Security ADs would LOVE to see documented a security model that has been proved to work in that environment. so I think this particular point is a red herring. Cost of participation and patience with process may be bigger obstacles. Harald pgp0IPnMPnZYG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
Robert Sayre writes: I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually trying to get work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the same way. Most of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, there are implementers whose support is valuable. The rest of the participants are valuable when they fix bugs. JFC doesn't seem to fix many bugs, and drives implementers away in droves, from what I can see. Which implementers are those? Implementers don't spend their time jabbering on discussion groups; they are too busy implementing. Gee, it's nice to know I don't exist - that will save me tons of time... As it happens I'm actively involved in the implementation of almost all of the protocol specifications I work on. I typically write the code myself for SMTP and sieve stuff, IMAP stuff is usually done by other people on my team. And this code usually ends up in commercial products used at lots of sites to support many millions of users - it is hardly an academic exercise. I know lots of other IETF participants who are involved in specification implementation. Quite a few of them write the code themselves. Some work on open source, others on propietary implementations, and there are even some that appear to do it just to make sure things really are implementable. In fact there are entire WGs (e.g., sieve) where almost all of the active participants appear to be implementors. Analyze, specific, code, test, release. No need for chewing the fat on a mailing list in that process. How very wrong you are. This sort of interaction is HUGELY valuable to implementors. And there are only so many hours in a day, so one can spend them doing things or spend them talking about doing things, but it's hard to manage both. This, at least, is true. But hard to manage != imposssible to manage. It has been suggested that I be placed under RFC 3683 sanctions in the past, though I suppose the offending messages have always been in response to misconduct (not a justification). I don't think the IETF is in any danger of developing a trigger finger here. If all the time spent discussing this most useless of RFCs were dedicated to actually addressing real problems, what might be accomplished? Aside from providing comic relief, exactly what does your your ridiculous assertion that implmentors don't particulate in the IETF accomplish? Ned ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate on the humanity of capitol punishment? As a non-US citizen, I am a little hazy about some details of the US legal system. Do I assume that this punishment requires the malefactor to sit through a set period of congressional filibusters? I look forwards to a Supreme Court ruling outlawing it as a cruel and unusual punishment. Regards, Elwyn ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: P2P protocols (Re: Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Harald Tveit Alvestrand writes: let's veer off... this is much more fun than other current discussions :-) Since a major problem for illegal P2P networks at the moment is dealing with content that is inserted maliciously (the file named Britney Spears' latest hit that says THOU SHALT NOT STEAL in a thunderous voice), I think they have a large motivation for workable security models.. and I suspect that the Security ADs would LOVE to see documented a security model that has been proved to work in that environment. As a former Security AD, I can tell you that I have a research project going on some aspects of this. Believe it or not, I think the issue is linked to BGP security. The real problem in the Security Considerations, though, is the defense against subpoena attacks. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
Ned, It is certainly fair to say that implementors do participate in mailing list discussions, and that their participation is very valuable. However, many times the number of participants that are active (read - vocal) are those that lurk and it is my opinion - supported by observation of, and discussion with, implementors at a number of different companies - that the proportion of lurkers that are implementors is somewhat higher than the proportion of active participants that are also implementors. I am also of the opinion that for each participant (either lurker or active), there are many implementors that participate vicariously through those others in their organization who are more disposed to participate. The number of implementors that do not - therefore - actively particpate in IETF working groups is many times the number that do - and this would clearly look to many people (especially to an out- sider) as if implementors are too busy implementing to participate in mailing list discussions. -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Behalf Of Ned Freed -- Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:41 AM -- To: Anthony G Atkielski -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus -- -- Robert Sayre writes: -- -- I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually -- trying to get -- work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the -- same way. Most -- of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with -- designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, there are -- implementers whose support is valuable. The rest of the -- participants -- are valuable when they fix bugs. JFC doesn't seem to -- fix many bugs, -- and drives implementers away in droves, from what I can see. -- -- Which implementers are those? -- -- Implementers don't spend their time jabbering on -- discussion groups; -- they are too busy implementing. -- -- Gee, it's nice to know I don't exist - that will save me -- tons of time... -- -- As it happens I'm actively involved in the implementation -- of almost all of the -- protocol specifications I work on. I typically write the -- code myself for SMTP -- and sieve stuff, IMAP stuff is usually done by other -- people on my team. And -- this code usually ends up in commercial products used at -- lots of sites to -- support many millions of users - it is hardly an academic exercise. -- -- I know lots of other IETF participants who are involved in -- specification -- implementation. Quite a few of them write the code -- themselves. Some work on -- open source, others on propietary implementations, and -- there are even some that -- appear to do it just to make sure things really are -- implementable. In fact -- there are entire WGs (e.g., sieve) where almost all of the -- active participants -- appear to be implementors. -- -- Analyze, specific, code, test, -- release. No need for chewing the fat on a mailing list in that -- process. -- -- How very wrong you are. This sort of interaction is HUGELY -- valuable to -- implementors. -- -- And there are only so many hours in a day, so one can spend -- them doing things or spend them talking about doing -- things, but it's -- hard to manage both. -- -- This, at least, is true. But hard to manage != -- imposssible to manage. -- -- It has been suggested that I be placed under RFC 3683 -- sanctions in the -- past, though I suppose the offending messages have -- always been in -- response to misconduct (not a justification). I don't -- think the IETF -- is in any danger of developing a trigger finger here. -- -- If all the time spent discussing this most useless of RFCs were -- dedicated to actually addressing real problems, what might be -- accomplished? -- -- Aside from providing comic relief, exactly what does your -- your ridiculous -- assertion that implmentors don't particulate in the IETF -- accomplish? -- -- Ned -- -- ___ -- 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: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
-- Original message -- From: Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate on the humanity of capitol punishment?As a non-US citizen, I am a little hazy about some details of the US legal system. Do I assume that this punishment requires the malefactor to sit through a set period of congressional filibusters? I look forwards to a Supreme Court ruling outlawing it as a cruel and unusual punishment. yeah I couldnt agree more. Capitol punishment is barbaric and cruel and the action of vindictive people. Odd though that you assumed I was saying that the use of capitol punishment needed to be defended instead of that the prevention of it needed to be ensured. Either way capitol punishment wa! s an analogy and whatever country you hail from I'm sure my point applies the same. My point, if you are interested, was that if the penalty for a crime had to be redecided during every trial then trials would take forever and choke an already bottlenecked system. If you can see the parralel to our current situation where once again we debate the breadth and extent of PR-Action policy while we're in the middle of trying to apply it. It's half-assed and juvenile and disorderly to the point of embarrasment. The mature voices are few and far between so we're left with a childish melee that would lose us the respect of any grown-up professional who saw it. It's become a romper room and it's an embarrasment. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] a debate on the humanity of capitol punishment? Do I assume that this punishment requires the malefactor to sit through a set period of congressional filibusters? Capitol punishment is barbaric and cruel and the action of vindictive people. Ah, I suspect that Elwyn was gently pulling your leg about your inability to spell capital (i.e. the death penalty) - capitol means location of the government (and similar meanings, including the name of the building which houses the US federal legislature, which is called the Capitol) - and that you've therefore missed the joke... Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote: Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a chance of getting an RFC. Why not? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
-- Original message -- From: John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am growing tired of this meta-discussion, but I just needed to add my 2 cents, then I'll be quiet I cannot say if this is what Jefsey is doing, as I am not active in any of the WGs in question.John- Can you imagine if during every murder trial they had a debate onthe humanity of capitol punishment? This in my opinion becomes a meta-discussion because people who have nothing to say about Jefsey post their general feelings on pr-actions. While I respect everyone's comments and agree each time we go through the process we learn how to better it, this is not the time or the place to discuss it. Please, if you don't have an opinion specifically related to Jefsey then stay out of the Jefsey discussion. ---BeginMessage--- ___ 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 ---End Message--- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
On 1/22/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please, if you don't have an opinion specifically related to Jefsey then stay out of the Jefsey discussion. On 1/22/06, Scott W Brim sbrim@cisco.com wrote: On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote: Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a chance of getting an RFC. Why not? Peer-to-peer protocols are a great example. The IETF is a miserable place to work on them because the organization tolerates all pseudo-technical discussion, and thus fails to hold the attention of implementers, despite the fact that the process is designed to route around that exact problem. I suspect the IESG will find that the folks actually trying to get work done in the presence of JFC's emails all feel the same way. Most of the objections seem to be coming from people concerned with designing the perfect bureaucratic process. In any WG, there are implementers whose support is valuable. The rest of the participants are valuable when they fix bugs. JFC doesn't seem to fix many bugs, and drives implementers away in droves, from what I can see. It has been suggested that I be placed under RFC 3683 sanctions in the past, though I suppose the offending messages have always been in response to misconduct (not a justification). I don't think the IETF is in any danger of developing a trigger finger here. -- Robert Sayre I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Re: how to declare consensus when someone ignores consensus
On 01/22/2006 22:27 PM, John Loughney allegedly wrote: Look at various peer-to-peer protocols as a good examples of things that people use everyday, but wouldn't stand a chance of getting an RFC. Why not? Now we're close to side veering off into process issues, but rather than going into that rat-hole, I'll just pose a question: do you think p2p protocol authors would have any motiviation to create a Security Considerations section that would pass IESG review? John ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
