Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
On 9/26/2012 1:55 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: On 26 Sep 2012, at 03:18, tglassey tglas...@earthlink.net wrote: The issue is how to remove the political BS which clouds so many initiatives. Disagree that this is *the* issue. We also get technical BS and even stuff that's utterly incompressible if you can believe that, We (none of us as technologists) have any business in politics. Further the IETF is not a PAC and you dont want that level of review here AFAIK. If the IETF becomes a PAC then the whole world changes. This is why it is not acceptable for the IETF to prevent any standards process from completing or interfere with any process. Its necessary to be provably fair and open (right?)... Todd S - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5292 - Release Date: 09/25/12 -- //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
Hi Dave, and All, The beauty of the IETF is that it includes all Internet USERS (i.e.people or organisations) around the world, no one should use it in their interest, it should progress in the Internet Society/Community interest following the *open* engineering knowledge and practice. Engineers in IETF cannot disagree covering their reason or reference they SHOULD be open. Comments in line below: - The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative standards so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert. That makes no sense ... something can't be an IETF standard if it doesn't get created and adopted using The IETF's processes. The word 'standard' implies the approval of some organization/standards body. The independant stream does allow publishing of alternatives to IETF Standards, but that doesn't make tham alternative standards. For that some other recognized group needs to declare it a standard and then it will be An XYZ Group Standard, not an IETF Standard. --- I agree that the best practice is standards through WGs, because *knowledge* is the core reason for the GROUP, not *politics*. IMHO, the best practice is continue *open-discussions* with engineering and technical knowledge to give progress to WGs, but if some participants don't want to accept to discuss (by ignoring input) or don't want to listen to technical/research reasons in IETF documents or in publications out IETF, how can the WG progress? Still thoes participant MAY continue disagree (without discussing why) when calling for group consensus, what will be the best practice?, will it be that the submitter has to stop even if his/her has better arguments in terms of engineering. Some may fail to convice an IETF WG just because some active participants reply that they think it is bad, without replying *reasonably* to discussions. When I read the IETF procedure, I see that it makes decisions at the *WG-consensus* (with no relation to discussions and arguments) which I think not enough for progress in the eyes of IETF mission statement. Suggest: that if any participant disagree in I-D adoption in a WG, then he/she take a DISCUSS position (similar to IESG memebrs process, cannot just disagree), which they MUST have to take and reply to messages including their good reasons for their positions (you don't reply this idea/I-D is BAD). Any participant (submitter or who disagrees with adoption) SHOULD have an engineering reference(s) for such input. If I am mistaken please advise, because I need to discuss to understand, so we can help together make IETF better for the world users. Best Regards Abdussalam Baryun The mission of the Internet Engineering Task Force is to make the Internet work better by producing high-quality and relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet. See http://www.ietf.org.
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
Hi Todd, I agree on your concerns but disagree with few issues, read my disagree reason below: Todd Most of the vetting happens between parties offlist and no capture . AB any organisation may have this behavior, but what matters is as long as you are participating to : monitoring input, questioning, suggesting, convincing others, writing I-Ds for the IETF, and making up your decisions. ToddThe IETF process of today is based on a 'consensus' process from a membership of zero. That in and of itself flies in the face of reason and ethical clarity. If there were formal members who came together in a framework that the IETF administered it would be OK but the process today is too easily abused. AB it is greate that we are not memebrs, we are participants, because we become equal to any other, if memebrship then we will have a memebr for 10 years and a memeber for 5 years (not measuring efforts but time), but with the IETF we are just participants, the value or difference between us is only how much you participate and author I-Ds or IETF RFCs. There MAY be abuse to the consensus process only if the CHAIR does not consider the healthy discussion related. So we need something to avoid this. Todd When the journey is completed the standard will automatically issue... no IESG no IAB pain no extra administrative overhead for a bunch of lifer type standards junkies... Just simple and clean access to the standard process. AB standard process is greate as we have IESG and WG reviews, first because the authors will have to discuss through many things with the focused/expert IETF group, then secondly the IESG have a more general review which includes many other affects of the I-D with other WGs in IETF. Yes painful but healthy. Best Regards Abdussalam Baryun The mission of the Internet Engineering Task Force is to make the Internet work better by producing high-quality and relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet. See http://www.ietf.org.
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
Le 2012-09-26 à 09:52, Abdussalam Baryun a écrit : Hi Dave, and All, The beauty of the IETF is that it includes all Internet USERS (i.e.people or organisations) around the world, no one should use it in their interest, it should progress in the Internet Society/Community interest following the *open* engineering knowledge and practice. Engineers in IETF cannot disagree covering their reason or reference they SHOULD be open. Comments in line below: - The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative standards so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert. That makes no sense ... something can't be an IETF standard if it doesn't get created and adopted using The IETF's processes. The word 'standard' implies the approval of some organization/standards body. The independant stream does allow publishing of alternatives to IETF Standards, but that doesn't make tham alternative standards. For that some other recognized group needs to declare it a standard and then it will be An XYZ Group Standard, not an IETF Standard. --- I agree that the best practice is standards through WGs, because *knowledge* is the core reason for the GROUP, not *politics*. IMHO, the best practice is continue *open-discussions* with engineering and technical knowledge to give progress to WGs, but if some participants don't want to accept to discuss (by ignoring input) or don't want to listen to technical/research reasons in IETF documents or in publications out IETF, how can the WG progress? Still thoes participant MAY continue disagree (without discussing why) when calling for group consensus, what will be the best practice?, will it be that the submitter has to stop even if his/her has better arguments in terms of engineering. Some may fail to convice an IETF WG just because some active participants reply that they think it is bad, without replying *reasonably* to discussions. When I read the IETF procedure, I see that it makes decisions at the *WG-consensus* (with no relation to discussions and arguments) which I think not enough for progress in the eyes of IETF mission statement. Same concern. Some participants have been seen to come up as opponents without having participated in previous debates. Suggest: that if any participant disagree in I-D adoption in a WG, then he/she take a DISCUSS position (similar to IESG memebrs process, cannot just disagree), which they MUST have to take and reply to messages including their good reasons for their positions (you don't reply this idea/I-D is BAD). Any participant (submitter or who disagrees with adoption) SHOULD have an engineering reference(s) for such input. Support for this suggestion, adding that WG chairs should be clearly responsible for weighting arguments in their appreciation of rough consensus, in particular ignoring those that they find invalid. Regards, RD If I am mistaken please advise, because I need to discuss to understand, so we can help together make IETF better for the world users. Best Regards Abdussalam Baryun The mission of the Internet Engineering Task Force is to make the Internet work better by producing high-quality and relevant technical documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet. See http://www.ietf.org.
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
On 26 Sep 2012, at 03:18, tglassey tglas...@earthlink.net wrote: The issue is how to remove the political BS which clouds so many initiatives. Disagree that this is *the* issue. We also get technical BS and even stuff that's utterly incompressible if you can believe that, S
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:55, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote: stuff that's utterly incompressible In the header compression WG (ROHC), we had that a lot. (SCNR. I'm not sure that this thread has any other but comedy value at this point, anyway.) Grüße, Carsten
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
On 26 Sep 2012, at 10:01, Carsten Bormann c...@tzi.org wrote: On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:55, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote: stuff that's utterly incompressible In the header compression WG (ROHC), we had that a lot. (SCNR. I'm not sure that this thread has any other but comedy value at this point, anyway.) Oops - let's see if the phone spell checker gets incomprehensible right this time:-) S Grüße, Carsten
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
On 09/26/2012 04:01 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote: On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:55, Stephen Farrell stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie wrote: stuff that's utterly incompressible In the header compression WG (ROHC), we had that a lot. (SCNR. Signal to Clutter plus Noise Ratio? I'm not sure that this thread has any other but comedy value at this point, anyway.) Grüße, Carsten
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
Le 2012-09-26 05:31, Stephen Farrell a écrit : stuff that's utterly incompressible Oops - let's see if the phone spell checker gets incomprehensible right this time:-) I understood incompressible as equivalent to pure random noise, and it made sense! :) Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart -- http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source-- http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server -- http://numb.viagenie.ca
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG (was: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site)
Hi SM, I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard track document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or not consider? The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent. AB On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:08 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: Hi Abdussalam, At 08:50 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to know the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It is important that individuals get to make input to Failing to convince a WG can happen for any of the following reasons: (i) The arguments are unconvincing. (ii) The arguments are unrelated to the topic being discussed. (iii) The arguments look good on paper. Unfortunately, they won't work in the real world. (iv) The other individuals do not like the individual. :-) The above reasons may not even be valid. Internet standards which seems bad and does not follow the IETF mission. Therefore, there SHOULD be a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with reason, not just blocking excellent I-D because they group think it is bad with no reason or knowledgable discussion. If there is no procedure then If the group thinks that an I-D is bad, you can either accept that conclusion or you can try to convince the group that it is wrong. If you cannot convince the WG, there is always the Last Call where you get a second opportunity to raise your issues. There are procedures if a third opportunity is necessary. Around a month ago, Adrian Farrel asked the following question [1]: May I have your permission to share this email with the document authors. The answer [2] was: Therefore, I don't want to give any permission to share with them, I will leave it to IESG. If IESG agrees to share any/all comments they received to any/all author(s), I will have no objection. That's basically a no. The above puts the IESG in an unenviable position to decide whether to share the email. Regards, -sm 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg74749.htmlhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74749.html 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg74749.htmlhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74749.html
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG (was: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site)
Hi Abdussalam, At 10:19 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard track document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or not consider? The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent. There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards Track document. An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream if the author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards Track. A WG can adopt such an I-D. Regards, -sm P.S. I read your message [1] again. The first part seems to be about the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. The last part seem to be about a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with reason. There was then an AB and three hyphens on the next line. It is followed by but is this Why not? I thought any I-D can be standard track,. It was difficult for me to understand [2] the message. 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75097.html 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg60902.html
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG (was: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site)
SMThere is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards Track document. An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream if the author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards Track. A WG can adopt such an I-D. RussThe Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to produce standards track RFCs. So if I follow the second input above, then independent submission cannot be used to produce standard, then it should go through WG. The question was if there was disagreement from WG to accept, is there a procedure for the submitter to follow, or he must follow the WG and forget about his work (many inventions in the world were not convined by groups/experts, but were invented only when inventor didn't follow them but followed reasoning). Sorry if not clear, AB On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:15 PM, SM s...@resistor.net wrote: Hi Abdussalam, At 10:19 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard track document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or not consider? The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent. There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards Track document. An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream if the author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards Track. A WG can adopt such an I-D. Regards, -sm P.S. I read your message [1] again. The first part seems to be about the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. The last part seem to be about a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with reason. There was then an AB and three hyphens on the next line. It is followed by but is this Why not? I thought any I-D can be standard track,. It was difficult for me to understand [2] the message. 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg75097.htmlhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75097.html 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg60902.htmlhttp://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg60902.html
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
On 9/25/2012 11:15 AM, SM wrote: Hi Abdussalam, At 10:19 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard track document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or not consider? The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent. There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards Track document. An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream if the author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards Track. A WG can adopt such an I-D. Regards, -sm P.S. I read your message [1] again. The first part seems to be about the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. The last part seem to be about a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with reason. There was then an AB and three hyphens on the next line. It is followed by but is this Why not? I thought any I-D can be standard track,. It was difficult for me to understand [2] the message. 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75097.html 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg60902.html This is the problem we have - the IETF wants to be able to hold everyone hostage and force people to work inside from its operating models today. This is a fraud of the most obnoxious type - it is the GSO lying through its teeth about how transparent it is IMHO... but these things will all come out in the wash I think. The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative standards so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert. Todd - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5291 - Release Date: 09/25/12 -- //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, tglassey wrote: The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative standards so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert. Todd That makes no sense ... something can't be an IETF standard if it doesn't get created and adopted using The IETF's processes. The word 'standard' implies the approval of some organization/standards body. The independant stream does allow publishing of alternatives to IETF Standards, but that doesn't make tham alternative standards. For that some other recognized group needs to declare it a standard and then it will be An XYZ Group Standard, not an IETF Standard.
Re: Failing to convince an IETF WG
On 9/25/2012 6:32 PM, David Morris wrote: On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, tglassey wrote: The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative standards so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert. Todd That makes no sense ... something can't be an IETF standard if it doesn't get created and adopted using The IETF's processes. The word 'standard' implies the approval of some organization/standards body. The problem is the IETF Process is not transparent. Most of the vetting happens between parties offlist and no capture of that or the underlying processes in the standards process is in place. When the IETF was a trailing-edge process this wasnt an issue but as it has morphed into a leading edge GSO it is now. The independant stream does allow publishing of alternatives to IETF Standards, but that doesn't make tham alternative standards. And that is the problem. The IETF process of today is based on a 'consensus' process from a membership of zero. That in and of itself flies in the face of reason and ethical clarity. If there were formal members who came together in a framework that the IETF administered it would be OK but the process today is too easily abused. For that some other recognized group needs to declare it a standard and then it will be An XYZ Group Standard, not an IETF Standard. That is the point - the IETF cannot hold the world hostage - it must provide open, provably open at that, access to its processes. The issue is how to remove the political BS which clouds so many initiatives. The answer is an alternative standard process which has some form or predefined completion such that the standard will just issue. There is no fiefdom here there is no magic castle of the technological demigod to sacrifice a first-borne too here there is just simple and transparent steps which can easily be tracked. When the journey is completed the standard will automatically issue... no IESG no IAB pain no extra administrative overhead for a bunch of lifer type standards junkies... Just simple and clean access to the standard process. Todd - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5292 - Release Date: 09/25/12 -- //Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.
