Re: Charging I-Ds
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:05:35AM -0700, Bob Braden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 31 lines which said: [Of course, when the IAOC outsources the RFC Editor to India in 2009, Good idea. May be the indians will process the errata in time? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds)
Oddly enough there used to be a mechanism that was exactly what internet drafts have become, they were titled requests for comment or something of the sort. Anyone remember what happened to them? Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 05:33 PM Pacific Standard Time To: ietf@ietf.org Subject:Re: Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds) Charging for IDs will kill innovation. I use IDs to float ideas which may or may not bear fruition. I would not work on these if I had to pay. I also work on things at the IETF than my employer does not sponsor. These things will get thrown out as well. I assume i-d to be a proposal for a new protocol, which is implementable with a reasonable efforts and costs. i think your view and my view are opposite. i'd like to see the following: - submission of i-d requires an implementation - to become a RFC requires two independent interoperable implementation itojun ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Charging I-Ds
I always used to say that corporate memberships would be the worst means I could imagine to fund the ietf. It is gratifying to find that others have suceeded where I have failed. Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: Peter Sherbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 05:16 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; Eric Gray (LO/EUS); Melinda Shore; Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject:RE: Charging I-Ds The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do we bring in more in a way that furthers ietf goals? E.g. other standards setting bodies have paid memberships and/or sellable standards. IETF unique way could be to charge a fee for an address allocation to RIRs. On their side RIRs would charge for assignments as they do now and return a fair share back to IANA/IETF. If IETF start charging for reading contributors' papers how much voluntary contribution such arrangement would generate? Is there a guarantee that a pre-paid content remains worth reading? Thanks, Peter --- Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a topic on which everyone can have an opinion, hence many posts. Perhaps if there was a charge per post to an ietf mailing list? There is a serious point here though, Cerf, Postel and co have left us an institution with a 60s flower power era business model and a 1990s expectation of quality of service. The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do we bring in more in a way that furthers ietf goals? We could adopt the nist model of franchising conformance testing, only with an incremental fee on top paid to the ietf for use of the brand. The fee per item does not have to be very large to bring in a lot of cash. We only need five or so million a year. Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: Eric Gray (LO/EUS) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:43 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Melinda Shore; Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Charging I-Ds Melinda, I was trying to avoid weighing in on this discussion. The discussion is essentially inane, and that's (at least part of) your point. After all, the thought that someone might be asked to work on an ID, and then - in addition to volunteering their time to do the work - they then need to pay (per iteration) for the privilege of submitting it is utterly absurd. The whole idea of taxing volunteers is, as you said, ghastly. But - while we're on the subject of volunteering - your comment that reviews are at no cost to the IETF isn't quite correct. As a well-known SciFi author used to say - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch - (or TANSTAAFL). The effort to find sufficient volunteers to review documents is not a no cost exercise. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -Original Message- From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:02 AM To: Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Charging I-Ds On 7/31/07 10:51 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If an I-D is reviewed by several persons in the WG, one AD, two members of IESG, etc, then, yes, it costs money but such an in-depth review does not happen for random student-published I-D. There is still no cost to the IETF, since review time is volunteer time. The costs are for the secretariat, since someone has to extract the attachments or retrieve the drafts, get them into the database, keep the systems up and running, etc. That said, I think the idea of charging for draft publication is ghastly. Incentives matter, and structures that encourage more openness are better than structures that discourage more openness. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds)
Hi Itojun, How would you write documents which warn against people doing funny things? I wrote a draft about the issues with hop-by-hop options in IPv6 and cautioning against their use. I see that there are still proposals coming out which depend on new hbh options? What should I do instead of writing a draft? Cheers Suresh Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: Charging for IDs will kill innovation. I use IDs to float ideas which may or may not bear fruition. I would not work on these if I had to pay. I also work on things at the IETF than my employer does not sponsor. These things will get thrown out as well. I assume i-d to be a proposal for a new protocol, which is implementable with a reasonable efforts and costs. i think your view and my view are opposite. i'd like to see the following: - submission of i-d requires an implementation - to become a RFC requires two independent interoperable implementation itojun ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds)
Suresh Krishnan writes: How would you write documents which warn against people doing funny things? I wrote a draft about the issues with hop-by-hop options in IPv6 and cautioning against their use. I see that there are still proposals coming out which depend on new hbh options? What should I do instead of writing a draft? Well read RFC 1925 and attain zen? Arnt ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
Eric Gray The discussion is essentially inane I think this is an excellent observation. It suggests to me though that perhaps the best way to get more funding for the IETF is to impose a surcharge on inane messages to the ietf mailing list. The surcharge can be based on the degree of inanity of the message. I suggest the following schedule of charges: - $10 for a generic message whining about US customs/immigration processes - $10 for a clueless message suggesting a reorganization of the IETF or a change of the fee structure (fortunately not to be imposed retroactively) - $10 for a message about the value or lack thereof of Ascii art - $10 for a message about the format of RFCs - $15 for a message whining about US customs/immigration processes, if the whine is backed up only by anecdotes - $100 for a message suggesting that US customs/immigration processes are unfair to white men from western europe. I'd raise the fee to $500 if sent by someone with an obvious chip on his shoulder. - $100 for a message suggesting that IETF meetings be held in peculiar locations - $100 for a message suggesting that the cookies at IETF meetings should be rationed - $100 for a message stating that the list is full of inane messages (not to be imposed retroactively) - $200 for a message saying that NAT is evil - $200 for a message whining about the IETF's lack of sufficient emphasis on IPv6 - $500 for a message whining about the fact that IETF meetings do not routinely occur in one's home town. I would raise the fee to $1,000 if Barcelona is mentioned. - $500 for a message saying that the job of the IETF is to prevent the marketplace from making technology choices - $1000 for a message stating that the poster knows how to solve the spam problem once and for all. Of course, this is not an exhaustive list of inane categories of message, it's just a start. If, during the course of a week, a single poster sends multiple inane messages which say exactly the same thing, I would double the fee for each subsequent message. Putting such a schedule of charges into place would either eliminate the IETF's budget problems or else make its mailing list a lot more useful. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds)
If we simply charged a high fee for the I-Ds and a very high meeting fee
($10k) we wouldn't have all these documents to read. The attendance would
drop so the meeting could be held in a small inexpensive room. The IETF
could also charge for the email lists, cutting back on all the messages we
have to read. This would also minimize those pesky new RFCs that make
things more complicated for the equipment vendors.
Alternatively the IETF could NOT use the meeting fees to subsidize the other
IETF activities. They would need to find another funding source.
Perhaps they could charge for address space?
Another option would be to charge several dollars per cookie. I estimate
this would generate enough income to solve all financial problems and
possibly extend the lives of the attendees.
I can't believe this thread has continued this long.
Steve Silverman
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:05 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds)
Charging for IDs will kill innovation. I use IDs to float ideas which
may or may not bear fruition. I would not work on these if I had to pay.
I also work on things at the IETF than my employer does not sponsor.
These things will get thrown out as well.
Since we have started slaughtering the sacred cows (free {ids,mailing
lists, rfcs ...}), I might as well suggest few more.
* Make remote participants share the costs. i.e. charge for live
audio/video feeds. I believe this is fairer than charging for ids, rfcs
or mailing lists. People who want to participate, but are unable to
travel can get these for a lower meeting fee (25% maybe).
* Get some kind of corporate sponsorships for supporting free documents
(kind of like IEEE get 802)
* Cut back on the food and beverages
I would be unhappy with some of these things, but at least they still
retain the openness of the IETF and are reasonably fair.
Cheers
Suresh
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Charging I-Ds
A excellent start... You forgot $500 for messages on the use of ASCII in RFC's. -Original Message- From: Eric Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 10:50 AM To: Eric Gray (LO/EUS) Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Charging I-Ds Eric Gray The discussion is essentially inane I think this is an excellent observation. It suggests to me though that perhaps the best way to get more funding for the IETF is to impose a surcharge on inane messages to the ietf mailing list. The surcharge can be based on the degree of inanity of the message. I suggest the following schedule of charges: - $10 for a generic message whining about US customs/immigration processes ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds)
How would you write documents which warn against people doing funny things? I wrote a draft about the issues with hop-by-hop options in IPv6 and cautioning against their use. I see that there are still proposals coming out which depend on new hbh options? What should I do instead of writing a draft? you can implement test tools which would scan and probe vulnerabilities. like dsniff. itojun http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=itojun ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
On Jul 31, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Peter Sherbin wrote: The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do we bring in more in a way that furthers ietf goals? E.g. other standards setting bodies have paid memberships and/or sellable standards. IETF unique way could be to charge a fee for an address allocation to RIRs. On their side RIRs would charge for assignments as they do now and return a fair share back to IANA/IETF. A IP address use fee might help solve two problems. When based upon relative scarcities, IPv4 space should demand a higher premium. Even .5 cents per IPv4 address could generate perhaps 10 million per year. This fee might help free up some unused IP address space, where some of these funds could be allocated to the various Internet supporting services. Meeting fees could then reflect just the cost of the meeting itself. This might be analogous to licensing radio frequencies. If IETF start charging for reading contributors' papers how much voluntary contribution such arrangement would generate? Charging to publish would interfere with information tracking. One of the attractive features of the IETF has been a free information exchange where a document's status is directly declared. Charge a fee may devolve into searching various independent websites where documents would have an unknown status with respect to the IETF. Much of the authority conveyed is in the assigning of status. Is there a guarantee that a pre-paid content remains worth reading? This sounds like a question an ad agency might ask. Would pre-paid content permit uploading videos? : ) -Doug ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Charging I-Ds
* From: Richard Shockey [EMAIL PROTECTED] * To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * A excellent start... * * You forgot $500 for messages on the use of ASCII in RFC's. * Actually, I believe such messages are useful. They occur infrequently, in short storms at least a year apart, and they provide valuable input from the community. The RFC Editor has always scanned them carefully, looking for (a) a Better (and feasible) Idea, and (b) evidence that there is still a rough consensus in the community that the advantages of plain ASCII outweigh its obvious limitations. [Of course, when the IAOC outsources the RFC Editor to India in 2009, I don't know what effect future such messages will have.] It seems worthwhile to contemplate our editorial navels once in awhile, and does not cost much in the overall message flow. Now, if we could cut down on endless IETF process discussions... Bob Braden ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Charging I-Ds
In keeping with Eric Rosen's excellent thread .. The simple solution is to charge 500 .. UK POUNDS!! for Internet Access during the IETF meetings. This is clearly in keeping with standard hotel/airport practices around the world. This would clearly solve the budget problem as well as discourage people attending WG meetings from spending most of their time on YouTube instead of following the discussion. ### On Jul 31, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Peter Sherbin wrote: The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do we bring in more in a way that furthers ietf goals? E.g. other standards setting bodies have paid memberships and/or sellable standards. IETF unique way could be to charge a fee for an address allocation to RIRs. On their side RIRs would charge for assignments as they do now and return a fair share back to IANA/IETF. A IP address use fee might help solve two problems ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
Richard Shockey wrote: In keeping with Eric Rosen's excellent thread .. The simple solution is to charge 500 .. UK POUNDS!! for Internet Access during the IETF meetings. This is clearly in keeping with standard hotel/airport practices around the world. GBP 500 for using a laptop in a WG meeting for purposes not related to the WG meeting. GBP 1000 for making comments in a WG meeting on a draft you haven't read. Charge for every PowerPoint slide used in a presentation - GBP 2 for the first one, and the rate doubles for each additional slide. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
On 1-aug-2007, at 22:48, Keith Moore wrote: Charge for every PowerPoint slide used in a presentation - GBP 2 for the first one, and the rate doubles for each additional slide. Right, the letters on the average powerpoint slide are way too comfortable to read from the back of the room the way things are now. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Charging I-Ds
IETF unique way could be to charge a fee for an address allocation to RIRs. On their side RIRs would charge for assignments as they do now and return a fair share back to IANA/IETF. A IP address use fee might help solve two problems. When based upon relative scarcities, IPv4 space should demand a higher premium. The Board of Trustees of ARIN, one of the 5 RIRs, has just released an official statement here: http://www.arin.net/announcements/20070701.html There are, however, those who propose that the democratically established governance principles now be abandoned, to create a market in IP addresses. A market that abandons these existing, consensus-driven core values would encourage speculators to take advantage of the upcoming time of relative scarcity of IPv4 addresses to profit from less foresightful users' remaining need. The purpose of this memorandum is to assure the community that the democratic principles of Internet governance will be adhered to by ARIN, That adds to the other two big hurdles. First, IP addresses are not property. And second, given the fact that there is a rapidly shrinking pool of free addresses to be sold, there is not sufficient liquidity for a stable market to form. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Charging I-Ds
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Board of Trustees of ARIN .. has just released an official statement There are, however, those who propose that the democratically established governance principles now be abandoned ... The purpose of this memorandum is to assure the community that the democratic principles of Internet governance will be adhered to I see; so anyone who disagrees with this policy is presumably anti-democratic? Why don't they just come straight out and say that anyone who disagrees with it is probably a racist homophobic pedophile? The past I liked the best was this: The current resource management mechanism is fully sufficient to address the upcoming shortage of IPv4 addresses. Riigghhttt. And the levees in New Orleans were fully sufficient to address the oncoming high water of Hurricane Katrina, too... Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
Thierry Ernst wrote: In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the entire IETF community. In many occasions, I have seen new drafts been announced by the secretariat, but not announced by the authors themselves in the WG they were targeting. In several occasions I emailed such authors to know more about their intention and many times I didn't get any reply at all. The others replied pt-2-pt but never announced their draft on the WG list (but they asked the chairs to do so ;-). So, my conclusion is that in most cases these are students who in their academic standards are required to show evidence of publication. I'm not sure the IETF is designed for this. In the other cases, prospective authors do not understand the IETF process, or are to shy to advertise their work. So, this proposition of charging could be refined as pubishing I-Ds that are not supported by any WG should be charged or something similar. Of course, WG drafts should be free of charge. Note that the aim of this proposition would not to get more fund to the IETF, but to relieve the IETF of the cost of processing drafts that are never read, never discussed, and absolutely useless. Understood. Let me add one thing I notice over and over again: drafts that do not state where discussion should take place. This really belongs on the front page. Anyway, with the automated submission process, the cost of publishing an ID should be close to zero (not really more than distributing a mail to all mailing list recipients and adding it to the mail archive). Note that even if an ID is never announced or discussed it can still be valuable later on. After all, the author hands over potentially useful IPR to the IETF Trust (unless I'm not mistaken). Best regards, Julian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 03:22:58PM +0200, Thierry Ernst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 42 lines which said: Note that the aim of this proposition would not to get more fund to the IETF, but to relieve the IETF of the cost of processing drafts that are never read, never discussed, and absolutely useless. Therefore, I do not understand your proposal. If an I-D is never read and never discussed, its cost is nil, no? (sending it to a mailing list has no real cost). If an I-D is reviewed by several persons in the WG, one AD, two members of IESG, etc, then, yes, it costs money but such an in-depth review does not happen for random student-published I-D. To summary: what problem do we try to solve? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
On 7/31/07 10:51 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If an I-D is reviewed by several persons in the WG, one AD, two members of IESG, etc, then, yes, it costs money but such an in-depth review does not happen for random student-published I-D. There is still no cost to the IETF, since review time is volunteer time. The costs are for the secretariat, since someone has to extract the attachments or retrieve the drafts, get them into the database, keep the systems up and running, etc. That said, I think the idea of charging for draft publication is ghastly. Incentives matter, and structures that encourage more openness are better than structures that discourage more openness. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: To summary: what problem do we try to solve? either reducing ietf costs, or increasing ietf income do we know the 'cost per i-d'? or is that meaningless anyway while the i-d live in the automated part of the process? tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the entire IETF community. that's a really amazing statement. If I were participating in a WG whose chair had that attitude, I'd be lobbying hard with the IESG for another chair, as I'd suspect that the incumbent chair was inappropriately hostile to introduction of new ideas within the WG. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
Melinda Shore wrote: On 7/31/07 10:51 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If an I-D is reviewed by several persons in the WG, one AD, two members of IESG, etc, then, yes, it costs money but such an in-depth review does not happen for random student-published I-D. There is still no cost to the IETF, since review time is volunteer time. The costs are for the secretariat, since someone has to extract the attachments or retrieve the drafts, get them into the database, keep the systems up and running, etc. I-Ds do have a cost to the community as well as to the secretariat. For instance: The more I-Ds there are, the harder it is to find the document you're looking for if you don't know the I-D identifier. And every I-D announcement becomes another interrupt that has to be serviced by people who want to know enough about the I-D to understand whether it is relevant. In order to be really effective in IETF it's important to know about useful new ideas, and also to know which of those ideas are gaining traction within the community. Still, I-Ds exist to allow half-baked ideas to be aired. The notion that it's possible to objectively distinguish useful I-Ds from useless ones is silly. That said, I think the idea of charging for draft publication is ghastly. Incentives matter, and structures that encourage more openness are better than structures that discourage more openness. agree entirely. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
On Jul 31, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Tim Chown wrote: On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: To summary: what problem do we try to solve? either reducing ietf costs, or increasing ietf income do we know the 'cost per i-d'? or is that meaningless anyway while the i-d live in the automated part of the process? Neither running the software nor maintaining it is free (and we get lots of help from some pretty capable volunteers as it is). Regards Marshall tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the entire IETF community. that's a really amazing statement. If I were participating in a WG whose chair had that attitude, I'd be lobbying hard with the IESG for another chair, as I'd suspect that the incumbent chair was inappropriately hostile to introduction of new ideas within the WG. Sorry, what attitude are you talking about here ? I was speaking about people who publish drafts but never say a word to anyone about their draft. What's the purpose ? If the purpose is to get new ideas through, I don't see how publishing a draft and non advertising is useful for the sender (it may for the reader). But more importantly, I don't see what you see as hostile in the observation above. Thierry. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
Thierry Ernst wrote: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the entire IETF community. that's a really amazing statement. If I were participating in a WG whose chair had that attitude, I'd be lobbying hard with the IESG for another chair, as I'd suspect that the incumbent chair was inappropriately hostile to introduction of new ideas within the WG. Sorry, what attitude are you talking about here ? I was speaking about people who publish drafts but never say a word to anyone about their draft. What's the purpose ? it used to be the case that merely publishing a draft would get some attention for it. these days, that amount of attention is probably very small. also, publishing an I-D might be useful for other reasons - e.g. to establish prior art in case an idea or invention in the draft is ever patented by someone else. and how do you know that the authors never say a word to anyone about their draft? If the purpose is to get new ideas through, I don't see how publishing a draft and non advertising is useful for the sender (it may for the reader). But more importantly, I don't see what you see as hostile in the observation above. perhaps I misunderstood. I just don't want to further raise the barrier for publishing I-Ds, because it's easier for the community to deal with ideas published in that form than, say, on a web page or blog. Keith ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Charging I-Ds
Its a nonsense idea. The vanity press formerly known as peer-reviewed journals have become virtually irrelevant for any purpose other than determining academic tenure or award of research grants. If its not on the Web it is not going to influence anyone else. Charges that bear no relationship to the underlying costs are a nonsense that will simply not fly. Publication fees in academic publishing are a racket on top of a racket that is not going to last long. Charging $5 to publish a document on the Web is not going to fly, still less $500. Google will give you a blog for free and you can be pretty certain it will be arround in a century or so. An internet draft is expired and deleted in 6 months. If the cost of publication is a burden to the secretariat we need to look at ways to reduce the cost. XML2RFC makes it much easier to move towards automated publication. From: Thierry Ernst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 31/07/2007 9:22 AM To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Charging I-Ds One notion might be to charge for publications of Internet Drafts. $500 for a draft name including five revisions and then $25 for each additional revision. The rationale is that it is the draft publications which create work for the entire IETF and the cost of that work should be borne by those who want to see the work accomplished. My understanding was that publishing the IDs today is mainly automatic (at least with the new tools). Charging for publication of IDs will essentially discourage people from doing so, which I think would be a not-so-good effect. In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the entire IETF community. In many occasions, I have seen new drafts been announced by the secretariat, but not announced by the authors themselves in the WG they were targeting. In several occasions I emailed such authors to know more about their intention and many times I didn't get any reply at all. The others replied pt-2-pt but never announced their draft on the WG list (but they asked the chairs to do so ;-). So, my conclusion is that in most cases these are students who in their academic standards are required to show evidence of publication. I'm not sure the IETF is designed for this. In the other cases, prospective authors do not understand the IETF process, or are to shy to advertise their work. So, this proposition of charging could be refined as pubishing I-Ds that are not supported by any WG should be charged or something similar. Of course, WG drafts should be free of charge. Note that the aim of this proposition would not to get more fund to the IETF, but to relieve the IETF of the cost of processing drafts that are never read, never discussed, and absolutely useless. Thierry. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the entire IETF community. that's a really amazing statement. If I were participating in a WG whose chair had that attitude, I'd be lobbying hard with the IESG for another chair, as I'd suspect that the incumbent chair was inappropriately hostile to introduction of new ideas within the WG. Sorry, what attitude are you talking about here ? I was speaking about people who publish drafts but never say a word to anyone about their draft. Please explain how it is you can be sure they haven't communicated to anyone about their draft. What's the purpose ? People are, as a rule, lazy. It is therefore pretty unlikely that they will engage in a fairly time-consuming activity with no purpose in mind. A better question is whether or not the purpose for which some drafts are published is in line with the general goals of the IETF, and if it isn't should something be done about it. For example, I suspect that in some cases drafts are published primarily for the authors to be able say that they have done work in the IETF. So let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that (a) The cost of publishing an I-D is significant, (b) Lots of drafts are published that aren't intended to fulfill the goals of the IETF. Given these assumptions the obvious fix is to reduce publication costs with better automation. I find it extremely hard to believe that our publication needs cannot be met with an almost entirely automated system, one where the per-draft costs are extremely low. We might have to sacrifice a little to make it work, but given that we're a bunch of engineers here and engineering is always about tradeoffs I see no reason why we should be unwilling or unable to apply engineering principles to our internal processes. For example, if extraction of drafts from email cannot be automated I think we all could survive with a web-based submission tool. But even if we cannot get the costs down I don't think charging for being able to post a draft solves the problem. Rather, the likely outcomes is that people will simply stop posting drafts to a central server. They will instead post their drafts to their own servers and send a message to one or more IETF lists saying they have done so. So this won't work unless we accompany the charge with a hard rule that only drafts posted to the authorized IETF server can be discussed on IETF lists, and at that point I suspect we'd have a full scale revolt on our hands. (To be perfectly honest I'd likely be one of the people leading the revolt.) If the purpose is to get new ideas through, I don't see how publishing a draft and non advertising is useful for the sender (it may for the reader). But more importantly, I don't see what you see as hostile in the observation above. Your saying that your experience as a working group chair is what led you to this conclusion is what made it hostile - very hostile indeed IMO. It would have read very differently had you instead made the comment speaking as a general IETF participant. But given the context Keith's characterization sounded spot on to me. Ned ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:29:51 -0400 Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thierry Ernst wrote: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In principle I would be against charging, but my experience of being a chair makes me believe that many authors have no reason to publish their I-D which are just a burden to the I-D secretariat and thus the entire IETF community. that's a really amazing statement. If I were participating in a WG whose chair had that attitude, I'd be lobbying hard with the IESG for another chair, as I'd suspect that the incumbent chair was inappropriately hostile to introduction of new ideas within the WG. Sorry, what attitude are you talking about here ? I was speaking about people who publish drafts but never say a word to anyone about their draft. What's the purpose ? it used to be the case that merely publishing a draft would get some attention for it. these days, that amount of attention is probably very small. also, publishing an I-D might be useful for other reasons - e.g. to establish prior art in case an idea or invention in the draft is ever patented by someone else. OK, this may be a valid reason (though I doubt the IETF process of publishing I-D has been designed for such a reason). and how do you know that the authors never say a word to anyone about their draft? Well, I meant the WG doesn't know, but individuals who monitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] may. I just wonder why as an author I would take my time to write a draft which deal with protocol ABCD and not announce it on the ABCD mailing list. To me this is non sense, and my interpretation is that the intend is not to inform ABCD but to get the document published (with no reviews). I'm working in the academic world and I've seen many claims of documents published to the IETF, in some universities it could be perceived as an international publication or as being discussed within the IETF while it's not. If the purpose is to get new ideas through, I don't see how publishing a draft and non advertising is useful for the sender (it may for the reader). But more importantly, I don't see what you see as hostile in the observation above. perhaps I misunderstood. I just don't want to further raise the barrier for publishing I-Ds, because it's easier for the community to deal with ideas published in that form than, say, on a web page or blog. This I agree, as for establishing prior art. Anyway, your comment would have been more productive if you had said so in the first place rather than accusing chairs of hostility (with no obvious reason). Thierry ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
Tim Chown wrote: On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:51:56PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: To summary: what problem do we try to solve? either reducing ietf costs, or increasing ietf income do we know the 'cost per i-d'? or is that meaningless anyway while the i-d live in the automated part of the process? Expected result of charging per I-D: bigger I-Ds. /psa -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
On 7/31/07 1:01 PM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Expected result of charging per I-D: bigger I-Ds. Library science research in the early 1980s found that the number of authors was highly correlated with title length, so one might reasonably expect that charging for internet draft publication might result in longer draft titles. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Charging I-Ds
Melinda, I was trying to avoid weighing in on this discussion. The discussion is essentially inane, and that's (at least part of) your point. After all, the thought that someone might be asked to work on an ID, and then - in addition to volunteering their time to do the work - they then need to pay (per iteration) for the privilege of submitting it is utterly absurd. The whole idea of taxing volunteers is, as you said, ghastly. But - while we're on the subject of volunteering - your comment that reviews are at no cost to the IETF isn't quite correct. As a well-known SciFi author used to say - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch - (or TANSTAAFL). The effort to find sufficient volunteers to review documents is not a no cost exercise. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -Original Message- From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:02 AM To: Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Charging I-Ds On 7/31/07 10:51 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If an I-D is reviewed by several persons in the WG, one AD, two members of IESG, etc, then, yes, it costs money but such an in-depth review does not happen for random student-published I-D. There is still no cost to the IETF, since review time is volunteer time. The costs are for the secretariat, since someone has to extract the attachments or retrieve the drafts, get them into the database, keep the systems up and running, etc. That said, I think the idea of charging for draft publication is ghastly. Incentives matter, and structures that encourage more openness are better than structures that discourage more openness. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
There is still no cost to the IETF, since review time is volunteer time. The costs are for the secretariat, since someone has to extract the attachments or retrieve the drafts, get them into the database, keep the systems up and running, etc. And, with the advent of the online I-D submission tool (coming soon?) this will be reduced somewhat. In fact, since we want to encourage the propagation of ideas and the development of new standards, should the IETF be paying for every I-D that is published? This would tie in with the $200 that WG chairs get for every RFC that their working group produces. Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 12:29:51PM -0400, Keith Moore wrote: also, publishing an I-D might be useful for other reasons - e.g. to establish prior art in case an idea or invention in the draft is ever patented by someone else. I have written or co-written a few drafts in the past purely as problem statements or to raise issues. Rather than repeat text in list discussions, it's 'nice' to have a plain text format statement of an #issue or problem to focus discussion. While the draft may become an RFC, it also quite commonly may not if the solution draft briefly cpatures the issue at hand. Sure, the statement could be a web page, but the IETF 'version control' on texts is also quite handy to see how a text evolved over time. tim ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
Melinda Shore wrote: On 7/31/07 1:01 PM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Expected result of charging per I-D: bigger I-Ds. Library science research in the early 1980s found that the number of authors was highly correlated with title length, so one might reasonably expect that charging for internet draft publication might result in longer draft titles. You mean someone might break my record? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xmpp-simple /psa -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds)
Charging for IDs will kill innovation. I use IDs to float ideas which
may or may not bear fruition. I would not work on these if I had to pay.
I also work on things at the IETF than my employer does not sponsor.
These things will get thrown out as well.
Since we have started slaughtering the sacred cows (free {ids,mailing
lists, rfcs ...}), I might as well suggest few more.
* Make remote participants share the costs. i.e. charge for live
audio/video feeds. I believe this is fairer than charging for ids, rfcs
or mailing lists. People who want to participate, but are unable to
travel can get these for a lower meeting fee (25% maybe).
* Get some kind of corporate sponsorships for supporting free documents
(kind of like IEEE get 802)
* Cut back on the food and beverages
I would be unhappy with some of these things, but at least they still
retain the openness of the IETF and are reasonably fair.
Cheers
Suresh
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Charging I-Ds
perhaps I misunderstood. I just don't want to further raise the barrier for publishing I-Ds, because it's easier for the community to deal with ideas published in that form than, say, on a web page or blog. This I agree, as for establishing prior art. Anyway, your comment would have been more productive if you had said so in the first place rather than accusing chairs of hostility (with no obvious reason). I don't know you or your WG, so it wasn't a comment about you. I'm perhaps biased from having seen a few WG chairs who railroaded half-baked proposals through their groups and were hostile to input that contradicted their agendas. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Charging I-Ds
The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do we bring in more in a way that furthers ietf goals? E.g. other standards setting bodies have paid memberships and/or sellable standards. IETF unique way could be to charge a fee for an address allocation to RIRs. On their side RIRs would charge for assignments as they do now and return a fair share back to IANA/IETF. If IETF start charging for reading contributors' papers how much voluntary contribution such arrangement would generate? Is there a guarantee that a pre-paid content remains worth reading? Thanks, Peter --- Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a topic on which everyone can have an opinion, hence many posts. Perhaps if there was a charge per post to an ietf mailing list? There is a serious point here though, Cerf, Postel and co have left us an institution with a 60s flower power era business model and a 1990s expectation of quality of service. The current business model does not bring in enough cash. How do we bring in more in a way that furthers ietf goals? We could adopt the nist model of franchising conformance testing, only with an incremental fee on top paid to the ietf for use of the brand. The fee per item does not have to be very large to bring in a lot of cash. We only need five or so million a year. Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com) -Original Message- From: Eric Gray (LO/EUS) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:43 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Melinda Shore; Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Charging I-Ds Melinda, I was trying to avoid weighing in on this discussion. The discussion is essentially inane, and that's (at least part of) your point. After all, the thought that someone might be asked to work on an ID, and then - in addition to volunteering their time to do the work - they then need to pay (per iteration) for the privilege of submitting it is utterly absurd. The whole idea of taxing volunteers is, as you said, ghastly. But - while we're on the subject of volunteering - your comment that reviews are at no cost to the IETF isn't quite correct. As a well-known SciFi author used to say - there ain't no such thing as a free lunch - (or TANSTAAFL). The effort to find sufficient volunteers to review documents is not a no cost exercise. -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -Original Message- From: Melinda Shore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:02 AM To: Stephane Bortzmeyer; Thierry Ernst Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Charging I-Ds On 7/31/07 10:51 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If an I-D is reviewed by several persons in the WG, one AD, two members of IESG, etc, then, yes, it costs money but such an in-depth review does not happen for random student-published I-D. There is still no cost to the IETF, since review time is volunteer time. The costs are for the secretariat, since someone has to extract the attachments or retrieve the drafts, get them into the database, keep the systems up and running, etc. That said, I think the idea of charging for draft publication is ghastly. Incentives matter, and structures that encourage more openness are better than structures that discourage more openness. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Funding (was Re: Charging I-Ds)
Charging for IDs will kill innovation. I use IDs to float ideas which may or may not bear fruition. I would not work on these if I had to pay. I also work on things at the IETF than my employer does not sponsor. These things will get thrown out as well. I assume i-d to be a proposal for a new protocol, which is implementable with a reasonable efforts and costs. i think your view and my view are opposite. i'd like to see the following: - submission of i-d requires an implementation - to become a RFC requires two independent interoperable implementation itojun ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
