Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: But there's no formal process for that, and I think that's how we want it to be. I don't want no formal in a formal organisation, usually unformal process only happen in unformal organisations, so is IETF a formal or non-formal. I beleive we are in a formal so our managers (chairs and ADs) SHOULD follow formal procedures and participants MAY do both. I read the procedures and this is what I came out with if I am wrong please refer me to where does the procedure mention that WG Chairs have such authority. Now we got an I-D to explain the creation of WG drafts and the formal Chairs duties in this matter, please read below http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-id-adoption-00 AB
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On 29 Nov 2012, at 18:51, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: Hi Ed, At 06:54 29-11-2012, Edward Lewis wrote: Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs seem to be WG's that have already been meeting in secret. I agree with that. At the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled in sessions with BOFs and found that the ones I chose seemed as if they were already on the way to a predetermined solution. Only one had a presentation trying to set up the problem to be solved, others just had detailed talks on draft solutions. In one there was a complaint that the mail list wasn't very active - not a WG, a BOF! Not very engaging. The complaint about a quiet mail list may have been a comment I made at the mdnsext BoF. The reason for that is that the guidance we have for holding a BoF (RFC 5434) recommends forming a public mail list a couple of months before the IETF meeting where the BoF is planned and to have substantive list discussion in advance of the BoF, which should help form a solid problem statement and draft charter. Extensions of the Bonjour Protocol Suite (mdnsext) BoF The agenda [5] mentions Goals of the BoF with a link. I don't recall whether any proposed solution was discussed. Some views on potential solutions were made at the mic in the BoF. But the draft that was presented was a requirements draft, not a solutions one. I'll speak to Ralph soon about moving this forward. Bringing in baked work because there are multiple independent and non-interoperable solutions is what the IETF is all about. Bringing in a baked specification just to get a stamp on it is not. The former is a driver for mdnsext, i.e. a number of vendors producing potentially non-interoperable mDNS proxying solutions. I don't see a problem with the latter, especially if it documents something useful that is otherwise opaque. Certainly some WG lists have a lot of traffic, and on lists it's easy for a small number of vocal people to dominate the discussion, which is less likely to happen face to face (where people have to queue and take turns). Tim
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:03 PM, SM wrote: According to some RFC: All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions during the week a meeting is held. Not sure I agree with that. A draft submitted during the indicated week isn't up for discussion that week, but it may easily be the start of a mailing list discussion for a subsequent meeting, or it may be an update to a draft as an outcome of discussion. I see both pretty regularly.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 11/30/2012 3:29 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts, I disagree. ... Today, there is typically explicit text in the charter about adoption or there is explicit wg approval. Indeed: we always have the option of having the charter limit management options. Barry, I think you are trying to make a very different point from the one I am trying to make. I think you are trying to assert that there is flexibility while I am trying to assert that there is common practice. These are not mutually exclusive points. My point about a formal process having emerged is that a chair/wg wanting to adopt a document has a well-established set of common practice. It's not well (or at all) documented, but it exists in how working groups typically do things. I was not trying to comment on the degree to which that process is mandated. I acknowledge that fully documenting common practice, to make it official formal process, must combine both lines of concern. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or why it's a problem. I've seen some stuff around working group draft adoption that I don't like very much but am not sure that I'd identify those as a problem, per se, or that they would be done better with yet another process document. [WEG] My original message simply notes that this is the 3rd or more time in my recent memory that there has been a serious question within some part of the IETF about when in a document's lifecycle and maturity is the right time to adopt it as a WG document, and whether it is appropriate to discuss an individual document in a WG at any length without adopting it. It seemed odd to me that there would be this much confusion on the matter, and I provided several examples of different philosophies that I have observed when it comes to handling this question. The response I got back indicated that WG adoption of drafts isn't really a thing as far as the official documentation of document lifecycle is concerned, which made me wonder if perhaps we do as much WG adoption of drafts as we do mainly out of inertia, either people doing it because that's how they've seen others do it in the past, or doing it because they assume it's part of the documented process, rather than for any real reason. I'm not a big fan of doing things for no reason, so the ensuing discussion was intended to tease this out a bit to see whether we should have some clearer guidelines around WG draft adoption, better education on the reasoning behind it, or whether maybe we should stop doing it. Is it the largest problem facing the IETF? Not by a long shot. But it seemed worth a little discussion, at least to me. Process we just don't happen to like is not a problem. [WEG] process we don't happen to like because it adds no value or confuses people or wastes time is very much a problem. But I didn't bring this up because I didn't like the process, I brought it up because I was seeking a little clarity on the underlying reasons we use the process (at least partially to improve my own knowledge as a WG chair and draft author). Thus far that clarity has still not presented itself. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 11/28/2012 7:58 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: Let's start with a basic point and work from there: There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts, I disagree. There is flexibility in the process that has developed, but it's become quite formal. The first shakey steps were controlling assignment of draft-wgname roughly 20 years ago and it has evolved from there. Today, there is typically explicit text in the charter about adoption or there is explicit wg approval. There is nothing anywhere that specifies how the first version of a WG document is formed. Right. Our documentation of our formal processes has lagged. The next part of your note summarizes a couple of common starting points for drafts. On 11/29/2012 11:06 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: Here's where we have a gap, you and I: what you call undocumented policy I call a management choice. There certainly are parts of wg management that are left to chair discretion. However the IETF also likes to use squishy language like management choice to avoid being disciplined in its formal processes. We are constantly afraid of edge conditions, and use that fear as an excuse for being inconsistent in the handling of typical cases. In the current discussion, I think there needs to be an essential distinction: For example, choosing editors is /formally/ a management choice. Approval of drafts is not. I think the essential point is the difference between 'what' and 'how'. The IETF has unusual flexibility in the 'how', and often leaves the choices to management... but implicitly based on acceptance of the working group. In very specific circumstances, such as selecting editors, the freedom of management choice is permitted for the 'what'. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
At 06:09 30-11-2012, George, Wes wrote: [WEG] My original message simply notes that this is the 3rd or more time in my recent memory that there has been a serious question within some part of the IETF about when in a document's lifecycle and maturity is the right time to adopt it as a WG document, and whether it is appropriate to discuss an individual document in a WG at any length without adopting it. It seemed odd to me that there would be this much confusion on the matter, and I provided several examples of different philosophies that I have observed when it comes to handling this question. The response I got back indicated that WG adoption of drafts isn't really a thing as far as the official documentation of document lifecycle is concerned, which made me wonder if perhaps we do as much WG adoption of drafts as we do mainly out of inertia, either people doing it because that's how they've seen others do it in the past, or doing it because they assume it's part of the documented process, rather than for any real reason. I'm not a big fan of doing things for no reason, so the ensuing discussion was intended to tease this out a bit to see whether we should have some clearer guidelines around WG draft adoption, better education on the reasoning behind it, or whether maybe we should stop doing it. Is it the largest problem facing the IETF? Not by a long shot. But it seemed worth a little discussion, at least to me. You seem to have things under control in SUNSET. After reading your messages to this mailing list I didn't understand what you were asking. There is no such thing as a right time to adopt a document. Look at it this way, if you get it right nobody will know, if you get it wrong the working group will say bad things about you, if you get it really wrong the Area Director will be on your back. The choices for a working group chair are: (a) To get the work done (b) Not to do anything wrong If you choose (a) you will end up a lot of enemies. If you choose (b) you may or may not have a long career in the IETF. It is possible to discuss an individual document in a working group without adopting it. It is, as you mentioned, a matter of philosophy. If you find it disruptive you can say no. A lot of the things done in the IETF are done because we see others doing it. In essence they are done for no reason. On the Internet there is something called a sense of entitlement. The author of a draft may assume that he has a right to a RFC number. You can help him/her to get that RFC number as you were selected as working group chair to make everyone happy (or is it something else :-)). I'll quote http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/edu/attachment/wiki/IETF78/IETF78-WGchairs-Adrian-Farrel.ppt?format=raw 'Do you think this I-D should become a WG draft? - Can easily turn into a vote - Ask for reasons to be given to accompany a no opinion - Ask for expressions of willingness to work on or review the draft Avoid votes!' [WEG] process we don't happen to like because it adds no value or confuses people or wastes time is very much a problem. But I didn't bring this up because I didn't like the process, I brought it up because I was seeking a little clarity on the underlying reasons we use the process (at least partially to improve my own knowledge as a WG chair and draft author). Thus far that clarity has still not presented itself. I'll edit what you said: [adoption] doesn't happen because it adds no value or confuses people or wastes time. It seems that what you are asking about is a sanity check. You could sound some people to get a sense of which direction to take. Regards, -sm
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. If you mean that we haven't documented a/the formal process, you are correct. If you mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts, I disagree. ... Today, there is typically explicit text in the charter about adoption or there is explicit wg approval. Indeed: we always have the option of having the charter limit management options. That's a fine thing to do when it's appropriate, and some combination of the working group proponents, the community as a whole, and the IESG decides what's appropriate. For chartering, the IESG has the final word. Right. Our documentation of our formal processes has lagged. I find that to be an interesting interpretation. I don't see it that way. I do, indeed, mean that the IETF has not moved towards rather formal steps for explicitly adopting working group drafts. We have a common custom, which many -- probably most -- working groups use. As Wes noted, it's not used in a consistent way, exactly because it is NOT a formal process in any sense. We have a very well defined mechanism (a formal process) for making it a formal process, and we haven't done so. Wes noted that he'd like to; perhaps you'd like to join him in that. The formal process, as you know, would be to submit an Internet Draft with a target status of BCP, and either find an AD to sponsor it as an individual submission or make a BoF request and try to get a working group chartered for it. Only when that document becomes an approved BCP will we actually have formal steps. Until then, we have a custom that's usually, but not always, followed. Barry
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
[apologies to some for duplicates] Hi Geoff, On 11/29/12 3:56 AM, Geoff Huston wrote: It's nice to have reasonably well thought out ideas come in. Which then become highly defined precepts that become incredibly resistant to IETF change on the basis that they have been well thought out already (and probably are IPR-ridden) and at that stage the IETF process is functionally reduced to rubber stamping. At that stage the value of the IETF imprimatur becomes highly dubious to the industry its meant to serve. In my experience, when the IETF has been offered work that the other party felt was complete and would refuse to allow changes to, we've demurred (c.f., html). On the other hand, in the instances I'm aware, when the IETF did accept the work, it was always made clear that the IETF had change control (and used it). A perfect current example of this right now is scim. There were numerous implementations of scim, and it was brought to the IETF not only for the imprimatur but also to improve the work. A simpler explanation is that the authors and editors of work are more immersed than others, and therefore project more authority. Certainly that has been the case in nearly all efforts I've been involved, with a notable exception that also is illustrative: oauth, where an editor left the IETF precisely because he could not agree with the results. that's a good indication that we're striking a balance. Eliot
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
I also support pushing back in those circumstances, but I do (or would, as an AD) accept the minutes as a record of WG discussion. Minutes are, or at least are supposed to be, posted to the list for discussion and informal approval by the WG. This just means the minutes, especially about documents that only got f2f discussion, need to be adequately detailed. Often, they are not. -MSK On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 11/27/2012 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at all. ... 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. ... 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? Just to add my own input to this: 'Want' is almost irrelevant. In formal terms, it does not matter what was discussed at the face-to-face nor what notes are taken about it. The formal rules of the IETF are that mailing lists are where formal decisions are made. The working group needs to establish /explicit/ support for changes /on the list/. You are reporting that, in formal terms, the IESG has been approving documents for which there is no formal record of community support... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On Wed 28/Nov/2012 16:18:05 +0100 Keith Moore wrote: On 11/27/2012 01:00 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: 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? Please, please, please push back on those discussions. Far too many documents are being represented as WG consensus, and then IETF consensus, when there's nothing of the sort. This degrades the overall quality of IETF output, confuses the community of people who use IETF standards, and potentially does harm to the Internet by promoting use of protocols that haven't been carefully vetted. Simply presenting a document at a face-to-face meeting and asking people to raise hands or hum in approval isn't sufficient. A necessary condition for IESG consideration of a WG document should be that several people have posted to the WG mailing list that they've read it, and that they consider it desirable and sound. +1, s/several/some/, especially if qualified. jm2c
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:42, Eliot Lear wrote: A simpler explanation is that the authors and editors of work are more immersed than others, and therefore project more authority. To me, when projecting authority one is either demonstrating a deeper understanding of the topic than others or is bullying the others. So I have a mixed reaction to that statement. One the one hand it could be that work done elsewhere and brought the IETF comes along with people helping to educate the IETF or comes with people bullying the IETF. I guess what I'm trying to express is that when baked work is brought into the IETF it is subjective whether the process is healthy or not. Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs seem to be WG's that have already been meeting in secret. I agree with that. At the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled in sessions with BOFs and found that the ones I chose seemed as if they were already on the way to a predetermined solution. Only one had a presentation trying to set up the problem to be solved, others just had detailed talks on draft solutions. In one there was a complaint that the mail list wasn't very active - not a WG, a BOF! Not very engaging. Bringing in baked work because there are multiple independent and non-interoperable solutions is what the IETF is all about. Bringing in a baked specification just to get a stamp on it is not. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis NeuStarYou can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468 There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, and responses.
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. Working group chairs appoint document editors (this is in RFC 2418, Section 6.3). There is nothing anywhere that specifies how the first version of a WG document is formed. [WEG] snip We seem to have settled into a culture of starting with individual submissions and adopting them, but there's nothing that requires that [WEG] What this says to me is that we are adhering to an ad hoc or de facto process, and therefore in most cases we're not really thinking about why we do it, or even if we should, we're just going with the flow of past precedent. AKA, that's the way we've always done it/that's just the way we do things around here. We wouldn't do that with a technical protocol that we defined, we'd update the standard to reflect reality as implemented. So why are we behaving differently with our internal protocol? If it works and people like it, let's document it so that it can be applied consistently. If people think it's unnecessary and we should stick to the documentation as written (no adoption), let's do that. If we actively *don't* want an IETF-wide procedure here, we can even document that the process for WG adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs. There are plenty of WGs that have specific ways that they like to handle document submission, reviews, and requests for agenda time. It might be useful to have that all in one place so that people can know what's expected of them. So, yes, the chairs get to decide how they want to seed the document development process, and they have a pretty free hand in making that decision. Your ADs are always there for further guidance if you need or want it. But there's no formal process for that, and I think that's how we want it to be. [WEG] Barry, I respectfully disagree. The whole point I'm making here (and Geoff underscored nicely) is that it's currently too variable and too reliant on a small group of individual volunteers implementing it correctly. When things are not documented, we are dependent on having leadership who innately know how to do the right thing. But that leadership turns over fairly frequently. so assuming that we'll always have people in leadership who know how to make this process work correctly without some guidance is pretty risky, IMO. As the IETF ages and grows, and personnel (participants and leaders) turn over, the oral tradition breaks down in a hurry. Further, no matter how good the individuals are at their jobs within the IETF, applying undocumented policy (especially doing it inconsistently) looks to the outside world as arbitrary and capricious, or as centralizing authority, and that's not at all productive in an open standards development process. It can be discouraging to new participants, because it contributes to the overwhelming nature of figuring out how to get started as a new document author, and it can make the process seem more closed than it actually is. It is quite possible to document a policy or procedure with directional guidance and enough flexibility to allow intelligent adults to think for themselves and adapt to the reality of the situation during implementation. I'm willing to work on an update to 2418 to cover this apparent gap, but I'd like to know whether others agree that this is a problem (and are willing to work on the update with me). Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
If we actively *don't* want an IETF-wide procedure here, we can even document that the process for WG adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs. I believe that one is the case, though others can weigh in with opinions as well. Yes, we could change our documentation to explicitly say that this particular decision is a management choice. But I'll caution you against trying to do that in general: we have a million things that are unspecified and should be unspecified and left to management choice. Trying to find all of those and explicitly say so will be a frustrating exercise, and one that won't have a lot of value in the end. In general, we specify what we want to specify, and what's left is up to judgment and management. Further, no matter how good the individuals are at their jobs within the IETF, applying undocumented policy (especially doing it inconsistently) looks to the outside world as arbitrary and capricious Here's where we have a gap, you and I: what you call undocumented policy I call a management choice. How to assign document editors is a management choice. How to record track issues is a management choice. How much to open up general discussion, vs requiring focus on certain things now, and others later, is a management choice. Whether to process one or two documents at a time, or do five or six is a management choice. Even whether to have a formal working group last call is a management choice -- that one *is* discussed in 2418, because it's common enough and we thought it important enough. But a WGC who decides it's not necessary for a particular document isn't violating any process or policy. We hire the best and the brightest as our working group chairs in order to rely on their judgment and management abilities, exactly because a lot of flexibility is necessary, so a lot of judgment is necessary as well. Again, trying to nail everything down isn't desirable. And even trying to nail down the list of things that aren't nailed down isn't, as I see it. Barry
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 11/29/12 10:06 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: I believe that one is the case, though others can weigh in with opinions as well. Yes, we could change our documentation to explicitly say that this particular decision is a management choice. But I'll caution you against trying to do that in general: we have a million things that are unspecified and should be unspecified and left to management choice. Trying to find all of those and explicitly say so will be a frustrating exercise, and one that won't have a lot of value in the end. In general, we specify what we want to specify, and what's left is up to judgment and management. Hear, hear (and I feel pretty strongly about this). There are correction mechanisms if someone feels that a process has gone off the rails and I prefer to rely on those than trying to micromanage IETF process. Right now it seems to be the case that keeping much unspecified and having strong chairs is a better use of limited resources than trying to shove everything into a box. I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer. Melinda
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
Hi Ed, At 06:54 29-11-2012, Edward Lewis wrote: Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs seem to be WG's that have already been meeting in secret. I agree with that. At the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled in sessions with BOFs and found that the ones I chose seemed as if they were already on the way to a predetermined solution. Only one had a presentation trying to set up the problem to be solved, others just had detailed talks on draft solutions. In one there was a complaint that the mail list wasn't very active - not a WG, a BOF! Not very engaging. Christopher DearLove used the term [1] inner circle. There are people who will meet outside of the sessions listed on the agenda to discuss some predetermined solution. By the time the problem gets to be discussed in a BoF there might be a draft proposing a solution. Picking a few BoFs from the last agenda: RFC Format BoF It was pointed out that it was not a BoF. The agenda [2] mentions Applicability of previously proposed solutions. It does not provide any details about the proposed solutions. I think that some people asked about that before the meeting. HTTPAUTH BoF The agenda mentions [3] 5 presentations. It does not list the presentations. The people who have been reading the relevant mailing list would be able to know what might be presented. WPKOPS BoF The agenda [4] does not mention any proposed solution. There is an IETF mailing list where there was prior discussion about that BoF. Extensions of the Bonjour Protocol Suite (mdnsext) BoF The agenda [5] mentions Goals of the BoF with a link. I don't recall whether any proposed solution was discussed. People generally complain when a mailing list is active. When a mailing list is very active people start insulting each other. Scott Brim posted a policy that was tried [6]. I doubt that there would be IETF consensus about implementing that across all IETF sessions. As for engaging mailing lists, well, they can end up being unmanageable. I'll mention an example. This thread is a sub-thread where an Area Director [7] suggested Please be brief and polite. Nobody in their right mind would attempt to enforce that. Bringing in baked work because there are multiple independent and non-interoperable solutions is what the IETF is all about. Bringing in a baked specification just to get a stamp on it is not. Some people like having that stamp. Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76024.html 2. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/agenda-85-rfcform.html 3. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/agenda-85-httpauth.html 4. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/agenda-85-wpkops.html 5. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/agenda-85-mdnsext.html 6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76042.html 7. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76001.html
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
At 08:24 29-11-2012, George, Wes wrote: adoption), let's do that. If we actively *don't* want an IETF-wide procedure here, we can even document that the process for WG adoption of drafts is WG-specific and could document those specifics in a WG policies wiki document maintained by the chairs. There are plenty of WGs that have specific ways that they like to handle document submission, reviews, and requests for agenda time. It might be useful to have that all in one place so that people can know what's expected of them. There is a wiki for WG Chairs. Melinda Shore posted some comments on this list several months ago. She followed up and added material to the wiki [1]. There must be over a hundred WG Chairs. Only a handful of them have bothered to add material to the wiki. [WEG] Barry, I respectfully disagree. The whole point I'm making here (and Geoff underscored nicely) is that it's currently too variable and too reliant on a small group of individual volunteers implementing it correctly. When things are not documented, we The problem which Geoff Huston commented about might have occurred in a working group within the Routing Area. According to some RFC: All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions during the week a meeting is held. The following working groups posted drafts during that period: DHC BMWG MPLS TSVWG MMUSIC CODEC 6MAN MANET HIP APPSAWG P2PSIP SAVI DIME DNSOP OAUTH IDR SIPREC SIPCORE L2VPN FECFRAME MILE EAI STRAW PRECIS XMPP JOSE PCP URNBIS LISP NFSV4 MBONED SIPCLF OPSEC TRILL CCAMP MIF REPUTE ECRIT PAWS At 11:45 29-11-2012, Melinda Shore wrote: box. I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer. Yes. Section 6.5.1 of a document, which everyone claims to have read and understood, spells out what people should do if they want to protest. Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75826.html
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer. or good folk just walking away. there is a reason we are at the ietf and not the itu. rule obsessed and process hidebound is probably not the most productive use of smart folks' time. randy
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
Just picking at one point... According to some RFC: All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions during the week a meeting is held. What about drafts that not for discussion at a session? What about drafts that have completed last call or are in IESG processing? Cheers, Adrian
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 30/11/2012, at 8:14 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: I'll note that it seems possible that overspecifying process could potentially cause more protests rather than fewer. or good folk just walking away. there is a reason we are at the ietf and not the itu. rule obsessed and process hidebound is probably not the most productive use of smart folks' time. On the other hand any organised social activity is organised by virtue of the adoption of a common set of norms about the behaviour of individuals - we call em rules and processes, but the purpose is common. To what extent the activity is tolerant of exceptions, and to what extent the group activity is capable of self examination and evolution in the light of such exceptions is critical for longevity. Rigid systems tend to ossify while flexible systems tend to adapt. So for me its not that the ITU is any more rule and processed obsessed than the IETF's WGs. I'm sure we could all cite instances all along the spectrum of behaviour in both forums. The distinction for me is the ability of the forum to undertake self examination and evolve the rules and processes in the light of what may have originally been seen as exceptional behaviour. Geoff
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 11/29/2012 3:16 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: Just picking at one point... According to some RFC: All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before a session starts. If the above was followed there shouldn't be any draft submissions during the week a meeting is held. What about drafts that not for discussion at a session? What about drafts that have completed last call or are in IESG processing? Cheers, Adrian In addition to the cases Adrian asked about, isn't there also the case of an author/editor updating a draft that has already been discussed and then submitting it during IETF week? Thanks, Spencer
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
From: barryle...@gmail.com [mailto:barryle...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba we have a million things that are unspecified and should be unspecified and left to management choice. Trying to find all of those and explicitly say so will be a frustrating exercise, and one that won't have a lot of value in the end. In general, we specify what we want to specify, and what's left is up to judgment and management. [WEG] I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I am not saying that *everything* must be specified, nor do I think anyone should undertake an effort to even identify all of the things that are currently unspecified. I'm pointing out a specific area of confusion and inconsistency that has been created by something that is unspecified and asking should we specify? Further, no matter how good the individuals are at their jobs within the IETF, applying undocumented policy (especially doing it inconsistently) looks to the outside world as arbitrary and capricious Here's where we have a gap, you and I: what you call undocumented policy I call a management choice. [WEG] that's not really a gap, especially because you can replace my words with yours and the statement above still holds. I am saying is that there is an inconsistency because different people are making different choices on how to proceed, hopefully with the consensus of the WG behind them. IMO, the inconsistency goes beyond merely being flexible to accommodate the widest variety of cases, and adds confusion and variability to the process. I think the gap arises from the fact that you do not see this as inconsistent or that you do not see the inconsistency as a bad thing. It may not be bad in all cases, but I think there's a middle ground between overcreation and overapplication of rules and relative anarchy. I'm just trying to make sure we're actually in that happy medium, and that this is indeed the result of a conscious decision rather than simply imitating what we see in other WGs because that seems to work. FWIW, the WG Chairs wiki is also silent on this matter, and perhaps that is the best place to add a discussion about WG adoption of I-Ds. Is that more palatable? We hire the best and the brightest as our working group chairs in order to rely on their judgment and management abilities, [WEG] Well, no disrespect to any current or former AD, but this is giving us entirely too much credit for why the vast majority of our WG chairs are good at their jobs when it's more likely attributable to luck. Unlike other leadership positions in IETF, there's no formal interview or hiring process to determine who out of the group of engineers that make up IETF is best qualified to start chairing a WG. I certainly had no specific experience that made me any better than anyone else at being a WG chair the first time around. My qualifications included a non-zero amount of common sense, available cycles, interest in the topic, and joking the poor sense not to decline when asked to serve /joking. There's no mandatory training class. If one is lucky, you get paired with an experienced co-chair (I did) and given a pointer to the wiki (I didn't) to help you learn on the fly. It's clear that we trust our WG chairs, and there's nothing wrong with that. But sometimes providing them with more guidance is helpful. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 11/29/12 2:32 PM, George, Wes wrote: [WEG] I'm sorry if it was unclear, but I am not saying that *everything* must be specified, nor do I think anyone should undertake an effort to even identify all of the things that are currently unspecified. I'm pointing out a specific area of confusion and inconsistency that has been created by something that is unspecified and asking should we specify? I'm not very clear on what problem you're trying to solve, or why it's a problem. I've seen some stuff around working group draft adoption that I don't like very much but am not sure that I'd identify those as a problem, per se, or that they would be done better with yet another process document. Lo, those many years ago I co-chaired (with Avri Doria) the problem working group. It was a very bad experience, and I think left me convinced that dorking around with formalizing process stuff should absolutely not be done unless someone's identified a specific problem that interferes with getting documents out. Process we just don't happen to like is not a problem. Melinda
RE: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
Hi Adrian, At 13:16 29-11-2012, Adrian Farrel wrote: What about drafts that not for discussion at a session? What about drafts that have completed last call or are in IESG processing? I did not verify the state of the drafts for above when I listed the working groups. I listed a working group which did not have any session. I know that one of the working groups in the list has documents going through IESG processing. If you ask me whether the list is a good representation of the text I quoted, my answer would be no. There are three meetings slots in a year. If a group misses that slot it losses the opportunity for three months of work (assuming that there is discussion on the mailing list). People are free to object to object about the process not being followed to the letter or about arbitrary decisions of the chair. If I was a WG Chair and somebody asked why the work is being delayed or the working group is doing nothing I would point to the objection. What I won't say is whether people who will be implementing the work or who are actually going to review the work will walk away. Regards, -sm
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On 27/11/2012 18:00, Barry Leiba 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? In general, yes please, with room for special cases as John suggested. At the same time I would like this part of RFC 2418 to be applied: All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees. The list of attendees is now taken care of by the scanned blue sheets, but the barely literate he said, she said minutes from most WGs are pretty much useless. For people attempting to participate only via the mailing list this is a problem. Let's have more minutes like these: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-opsawg Brian
RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
+1 The length of the written mail list track of a document is only one indicator. It's an important one, but it should not be treated as absolute. Sometimes 2-3 people debated one obscure aspect of the document in tens of messages. In the case when a document generated zero or very little discussion on the mail list, and yet the write-up mentions 'broad consensus' I would recommend to verify what is the 'broad consensus' assessment based upon. Regards, Dan -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:42 PM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: 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 Wednesday, November 28, 2012 08:15 + Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: ... The list of attendees is now taken care of by the scanned blue sheets, but the barely literate he said, she said minutes from most WGs are pretty much useless. For people attempting to participate only via the mailing list this is a problem. Let's have more minutes like these: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-opsawg This is, IMO, a consequence of our developing fancy tools and then uncritically relying on them. A Jabber log or real-time Etherpad may be, and probably is, a very helpful way to keep real-time notes within a meeting but some WGs have substituted nearly-unedited versions of them (especially the latter) for minutes. They are not minutes, certainly not minutes as contemplated by RFC 2418, and I sincerely hope that the IESG and the community push back on those barely literate notes before there is an appeal against a WG decision or document approval that is based, even in part, on failure of the WG to comply with that 2418 requirement. john
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_ adoption as a WG draft. and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf process. randy
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_ adoption as a WG draft. and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf process. +1
RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
I've certainly been to BOFs where I might think this is a new topic to discover that it's actually indistinguishable from a WG I just hadn't attended before - the documents already exist, and the inner circle of who knows who is already in place. (The inner circle effect can be seen by examining minutes and seeing how often people are identified just by forename, because anyone reading the minutes is expected to know who's who in this group. Even the set of minutes Brian recommended had one such occurrence.) -- Christopher Dearlove Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124 chris.dearl...@baesystems.com | http://www.baesystems.com BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England Wales No: 1996687 -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: 28 November 2012 11:57 To: John Leslie Cc: Barry Leiba; IETF discussion list Subject: Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists --! WARNING ! -- This message originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or from the internet. Keep this in mind if you answer this message. Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages. I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_ adoption as a WG draft. and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf process. randy This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person.
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On 11/28/2012 12:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 27/11/2012 18:00, Barry Leiba 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? In general, yes please, with room for special cases as John suggested. At the same time I would like this part of RFC 2418 to be applied: All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available. These minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees. The list of attendees is now taken care of by the scanned blue sheets, but the barely literate he said, she said minutes from most WGs are pretty much useless. For people attempting to participate only via the mailing list this is a problem. Let's have more minutes like these: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-opsawg Brian Brian - does this include conversations between principals of a WG effort who are conversing about genesis in that WG outside of the IETF mailing list - i.e. what happens to conversations inside a development team ? How is that genesis and creative power harnessed for inclusion into the IETF process? Todd - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2629/5921 - Release Date: 11/26/12 -- Regards TSG Ex-Cruce-Leo //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On 11/27/2012 01:00 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: 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? Please, please, please push back on those discussions. Far too many documents are being represented as WG consensus, and then IETF consensus, when there's nothing of the sort. This degrades the overall quality of IETF output, confuses the community of people who use IETF standards, and potentially does harm to the Internet by promoting use of protocols that haven't been carefully vetted. Simply presenting a document at a face-to-face meeting and asking people to raise hands or hum in approval isn't sufficient. A necessary condition for IESG consideration of a WG document should be that several people have posted to the WG mailing list that they've read it, and that they consider it desirable and sound. Keith
When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie 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... [WEG] I've seen several discussions recently across WG lists, WG chairs list, etc about this specific topic, and it's leading me to believe that we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. I see 3 basic variants just among the WGs that I'm actively involved in: 1) adopt early because the draft is talking about a subject the WG wants to work on (may or may not be an official charter milestone), and then refine a relatively rough draft through several I-D-ietf-[wg]-* revisions before WGLC 2) adopt after several revisions of I-D-[person]-[wg]-* because there has been enough discussion to make the chairs believe that the WG has interest or the draft has evolved into something the WG sees as useful/in charter; Then there are only minor tweaks in the draft up until WGLC (the above model) 3) don't adopt the draft until some defined criteria are met (e.g. interoperable implementations), meaning that much of the real work gets done in the individual version It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice to coalesce a little from where we are today. So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually supposed to look like and why. If someone can point to a document that gives guidance here, then perhaps we all need to be more conscientious about ensuring that the WGs we participate in are following the available guidance on the matter. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On 11/27/2012 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at all. ... 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. ... 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? Just to add my own input to this: 'Want' is almost irrelevant. In formal terms, it does not matter what was discussed at the face-to-face nor what notes are taken about it. The formal rules of the IETF are that mailing lists are where formal decisions are made. The working group needs to establish /explicit/ support for changes /on the list/. You are reporting that, in formal terms, the IESG has been approving documents for which there is no formal record of community support... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
Hi, Wes, all, +1 to no one-size-fits-all. A model that's worked well in a few groups I've been involved in is something between (2) and (3), where the defined criteria is complete enough that interoperable implementations could conceivably be produced, a slightly lower bar; with the added caveat that discussion of the developing individual draft is encouraged on the working group list, and will be given second-preference agenda time at meetings. This allows a smaller group around the initial authors to build a coherent proposal, without shutting those out from the process who are motivated to contribute. The WG -00 then has at least plausible suggested answers to the most obvious questions raised, and can be modified by the WG from there (or, indeed, eventually rejected if it turns out the broad approach is incapable of drawing consensus support). This looks basically like a design team approach with self-appointed design teams. This approach would tend to work better for incremental or self-contained work around an already-elaborated framework or theme. Best regards, Brian On 28 Nov 2012, at 16:36 , George, Wes wrote: From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie 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... [WEG] I've seen several discussions recently across WG lists, WG chairs list, etc about this specific topic, and it's leading me to believe that we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. I see 3 basic variants just among the WGs that I'm actively involved in: 1) adopt early because the draft is talking about a subject the WG wants to work on (may or may not be an official charter milestone), and then refine a relatively rough draft through several I-D-ietf-[wg]-* revisions before WGLC 2) adopt after several revisions of I-D-[person]-[wg]-* because there has been enough discussion to make the chairs believe that the WG has interest or the draft has evolved into something the WG sees as useful/in charter; Then there are only minor tweaks in the draft up until WGLC (the above model) 3) don't adopt the draft until some defined criteria are met (e.g. interoperable implementations), meaning that much of the real work gets done in the individual version It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice to coalesce a little from where we are today. So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually supposed to look like and why. If someone can point to a document that gives guidance here, then perhaps we all need to be more conscientious about ensuring that the WGs we participate in are following the available guidance on the matter. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. ... It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice to coalesce a little from where we are today. So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually supposed to look like and why. Let's start with a basic point and work from there: There is no formal process that involves adopting anything. Working group chairs appoint document editors (this is in RFC 2418, Section 6.3). There is nothing anywhere that specifies how the first version of a WG document is formed. One mechanism could be that the charter says that the WG will develop a Lightweight Modular Network Operations Protocol, so the WGCs say, We appoint Wes George as the document editor for the LMNOP doc. Wes then goes off and creates draft-ietf-xyzwg-lmnop-00 based on discussion so far, or even based on his own opinion of a good start for the protocol spec. Discussion ensues and Wes makes changes based on the discussion, because, being a good document editor, he knows how to make the document reflect what the WG wants. A couple of issues are contentious, and the WGCs handle the evaluation of consensus for those, and Wes incorporates that. In the end, the WG as a whole thinks that the document accurately reflects WG rough consensus, and the chairs request publication. Another model is that two or more people submit candidate documents, and the WG decides which one is the best starting point. That's where adoption comes in. From there, the rest of the process goes the same. However we get to the -00 document, as long as the rest of the process goes the way it's supposed to, we're fine. We seem to have settled into a culture of starting with individual submissions and adopting them, but there's nothing that requires that, and for documents where there's not significant contention between radically different starting points, there's probably no need for it. So, yes, the chairs get to decide how they want to seed the document development process, and they have a pretty free hand in making that decision. Your ADs are always there for further guidance if you need or want it. But there's no formal process for that, and I think that's how we want it to be. Barry
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
I guess that a better question is: What are the expectations if a draft becomes an WG document? The opinions ranges from: a) It is something that some members of the WG consider inside the scope of the charter. z) This is a contract that the IESG will bless this document! Not all working groups are the same, some work on brand new stuff and it makes sense to have competing ideas progress and then the WG makes a choice. In other cases the WG is just fixing something in an important deployed protocol thus stricter criteria makes sense. For a WG I have chaired we have two adoption paths: a) publish draft as draft-editor-wg---, discuss on WG mailing list once document is on track and people can make intelligent choice ask for adoption. b) Chairs based on discussion on lists or events, will commission a WG document to address a particular issue. This will be published as draft-ietf-wg- in version 00. Most of the time this is reserved for updated version of published RFC's. Olafur On 28/11/2012 10:36, George, Wes wrote: From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie 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... [WEG] I've seen several discussions recently across WG lists, WG chairs list, etc about this specific topic, and it's leading me to believe that we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. I see 3 basic variants just among the WGs that I'm actively involved in: 1) adopt early because the draft is talking about a subject the WG wants to work on (may or may not be an official charter milestone), and then refine a relatively rough draft through several I-D-ietf-[wg]-* revisions before WGLC 2) adopt after several revisions of I-D-[person]-[wg]-* because there has been enough discussion to make the chairs believe that the WG has interest or the draft has evolved into something the WG sees as useful/in charter; Then there are only minor tweaks in the draft up until WGLC (the above model) 3) don't adopt the draft until some defined criteria are met (e.g. interoperable implementations), meaning that much of the real work gets done in the individual version It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice to coalesce a little from where we are today. So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually supposed to look like and why. If someone can point to a document that gives guidance here, then perhaps we all need to be more conscientious about ensuring that the WGs we participate in are following the available guidance on the matter. Wes George This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
Pre-IETF work ( was - Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_ adoption as a WG draft. and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf process. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's nice to have reasonably well thought out ideas come in. The IETF has a long history of starting efforts from many different levels of technical maturity. However there seems to be some recent leadership pressure to change this, attempting an ad hoc policy, by suddenly choosing to challenge the importation of existing work apparently based on a spontaneous, personal belief that it is bad to have IETF start from existing, deployed specifications. There is, for example, a difference between saying given the maturity and deployment of the document, what is the technical work to be done in the IETF? versus given the maturity and deployment of the document, why are you bringing it to the IETF? In pure terms, the latter question is, of course, entirely valid. In pragmatic terms, I'll suggest that it is cast in a way that is frankly unfriendly, as well as going against quite a bit of established -- and productive -- practice. I'll remind folk of the Thaler research suggesting that such work has the best track record of success for the modern IETF. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
Hi Barry, I thank you to open this discussion. I tried to open this discussion before on the list but was ignored, however, seeing your input made me think that there is importance to the subject. IMO I prefer the discussion list, because we all integrate and we all are present in its domain. In F2F meeting their is a certain time to meet and limited discussions and limited input. Please note that most of the input of IETF is done on the list not within F2F meetings. However, still we need F2F meetings to insure/encourage the directions of work/discussions. WG F2F meetings Main Purpose: Guidance, Directions, Sense Decisions, Interact with other WGs, Exchanging ideas and questions, Marketing, interaction with other organisations, etc. WG Discussion List Participations Purpose: announcements, feedbacks, The documented Work flow Processings, Making WG decisions, checking concensus, questions and answers, editing work/drafts, arguments, etc. I thought this is already in the IETF procedure that we are following, so maybe the question is are we following best practices or we just are following some people. I think so far that participants are sometimes following and sometimes not, which is disapointment (some one asked me once on the list why I was disapointed this is one reason). Regards AB
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
It seems to me that these variants are dependent on the people in the WG, the workload of the group, the chairs, past precedent, AD preferences, etc. It makes it difficult on both draft editors and those seeking to follow the discussion for there to be such a disparity from WG to WG on when to adopt drafts. I'm not convinced that there is a one-size-fits-all solution here, but it might be nice to coalesce a little from where we are today. So I wonder if perhaps we need clearer guidance on what the process is actually supposed to look like and why. I think the IETF procedures are clear that the WG should authorise all works, not the chairs nor the ADs. However, chairs guide the discussions on the list (which in few times does not happen because we are volunteering), and ADs guide the chairs and direct the WG output. The WG input is only authorised by the participants through rough consensus. So, yes, the chairs get to decide how they want to seed the document development process, and they have a pretty free hand in making that decision. Your ADs are always there for further guidance if you need or want it. AB I disagree that chairs have such authority on process without checking the WG if there was an objection or not. The ADs are there for the chairs guidance too not only participants. The chairs role is important to encourage/manage participants input time/effort in faivor of the WG charters. However, I agree that chairs MAY take decision on behalf of WG because they want to save time and they know the WG initial opinion by experience (still they need to check if there is any objection). But there's no formal process for that, and I think that's how we want it to be. I don't want no formal in a formal organisation, usually unformal process only happen in unformal organisations, so is IETF a formal or non-formal. I beleive we are in a formal so our managers (chairs and ADs) SHOULD follow formal procedures and participants MAY do both. I read the procedures and this is what I came out with if I am wrong please refer me to where does the procedure mention that WG Chairs have such authority. AB
Re: When to adopt a draft as a WG doc (was RE: IETF work is done on the mailing lists)
On 29/11/2012, at 2:36 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote: From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John Leslie 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... [WEG] I've seen several discussions recently across WG lists, WG chairs list, etc about this specific topic, and it's leading me to believe that we do not have adequate guidance for either WG chairs or participants on when it is generally appropriate to adopt a draft as a WG document. I see 3 basic variants just among the WGs that I'm actively involved in: 1) adopt early because the draft is talking about a subject the WG wants to work on (may or may not be an official charter milestone), and then refine a relatively rough draft through several I-D-ietf-[wg]-* revisions before WGLC 2) adopt after several revisions of I-D-[person]-[wg]-* because there has been enough discussion to make the chairs believe that the WG has interest or the draft has evolved into something the WG sees as useful/in charter; Then there are only minor tweaks in the draft up until WGLC (the above model) 3) don't adopt the draft until some defined criteria are met (e.g. interoperable implementations), meaning that much of the real work gets done in the individual version 4) adopt after seeing a reasonable number of WG members post NOT in favour of adoption, on the purported grounds that such expressions of disinterest in adopting the draft by some strange twist of logic are portrayed to point to interest in discussing the document Geoff
Re: IETF work is done on the mailing lists
On 29/11/2012, at 3:32 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote: On 11/28/12 12:57 PM, Randy Bush wrote: I'm increasingly seeing a paradigm where the review happens _before_ adoption as a WG draft. and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf process. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's nice to have reasonably well thought out ideas come in. Which then become highly defined precepts that become incredibly resistant to IETF change on the basis that they have been well thought out already (and probably are IPR-ridden) and at that stage the IETF process is functionally reduced to rubber stamping. At that stage the value of the IETF imprimatur becomes highly dubious to the industry its meant to serve. It's not clear to me if this idea of taking in 'mature' work is altogether a good thing.
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
