RE: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Larry Masinter]

> >*** Someone will "game" the system, for
> >example, to move forward a technical proposal by telling
> >each group that "the other group wants this".
> 
> One solution to this one might be to close the loop: if a WG is going
to 
> act on a claim that the ITU wants such-and-so, then the WG chair
checks 
> with the ITU (somehow...).  And vice versa, of course.

But, as we've established, it's hard to "check with the ITU"
when the liaisons are the ones playing the game; and folks with
an agenda are the ones most likely to volunteer for such roles.

Just as with protocol security, you can design all of the
feedback you want, but there may need to be some kind of "intrusion
detection" to decide if you're being hacked.

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:45:15 EST, John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:
> One solution to this one might be to close the loop: if a WG is going to 
> act on a claim that the ITU wants such-and-so, then the WG chair checks 
> with the ITU (somehow...).  And vice versa, of course.

This would be a no-brainer, except that it's been asserted already that the
ITU will refuse to give a straight answer to a non-ITU member.  Thus all
the tap-dancing.
-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech




msg07700/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[John Stracke]

>*** Someone will "game" the system, for
>example, to move forward a technical proposal by telling
>each group that "the other group wants this".

One solution to this one might be to close the loop: if a WG is going to 
act on a claim that the ITU wants such-and-so, then the WG chair checks 
with the ITU (somehow...).  And vice versa, of course.

/\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.|
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.|
||
|Earth: love it or leave it. |
\/

RE: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Larry Masinter]

Shouldn't this be considered as BCP rather than Informational?

Formal liaison rules don't substitute well for responsibility
and judgment.

I would suggest that a set of guidelines for collaboration
between IETF and other organizations in general should
include an analysis of common failure modes, and encourage
the participants to exercise good judgment and oversight
so that these don't occur.

Think of it like a set of "security considerations": analyze
the threats and describe how the threats can be mitigated
by the form of the liaison relationship.

Some examples of common failure modes:

*** Someone will misrepresent what's happening
in the other group and present their own or their company's
point of view as if it were the other group's. This was
the example given earlier. The threat is that someone
might be given more deference because they are "from the ITU".
(Note that this isn't so different from the case where a
'representative' from a Major Software vendor stands up and
makes statements like 'my company will never implement X'.)

*** Someone will "game" the system, for
example, to move forward a technical proposal by telling
each group that "the other group wants this". So, for example,
everyone in the IETF working group tries to help out the ITU by
endorsing a proposal because they think the ITU needs it,
while everyone in the ITU goes along with it because they
think the IETF has already approved it. Meanwhile, nobody
really cares or wants this feature.

*** People will "standards shop":
They'll choose one organization or another in response to different
requirements on intellectual property claims or assertions,
or different requirements for security considerations, or
independent interoperable implementations. One group or
the other winds up considering technologies or specifications
that don't meet their criteria.

*** Second-guessing:
When turned down by one organization because the proposal
is disruptive, inconsistent with that organization's architectural
or operational principals, individuals who were frustrated
will take the standards proposal to another organization
which doesn't have the same design principals or requirements.

*** Mutual deadlock: each group is waiting for the other
to finish a specification, and there is no way to easily
more forward with interlinking specifications.

*** Misunderstanding of other group's processes: working groups
in one organization avoid doing the coordination with the
other organization because of misunderstanding, fear, or
deliberate sabotage.

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Vernon Schryver]

> From: "John Stracke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> >However, what's the point of tying someone to the 
> >rails after the train wreck?
>
> As a deterrent, I think.  "Don't misrepresent the ITU position, because 
> they know whom they sent, and you'll blow your credibility in the ITU."

Those who care enough about their credibility to not misrepresent the
ITU position won't misrepresent it whether they are official
representatives or not.  Those who are swayed by other considerations
will, as in that infamous IEEE 802.3 case, be swayed even if they are
official representatives.  Some people are incapable of foreseeing
the possibility that they might be held accountable for what they see
as minor fibs or saying what they think they will be able to convince
the ITU to do expecially if the IETF has gone that way--again, apparently
as in that IEEE 802.3 example.


Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[John Stracke]

>However, what's the point of tying someone to the 
>rails after the train wreck?

As a deterrent, I think.  "Don't misrepresent the ITU position, because 
they know whom they sent, and you'll blow your credibility in the ITU."

/=\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer  |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |Incentive Systems, Inc. |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own. |
|=|
|If jumping off a bridge was "the industry standard", would you do|
|it?  |
\=/

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:30:52 PST, Matt Holdrege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:
> If you are not an ITU-T member, then you have no direct ability to tell if 
> someone is giving you the straight scoop even if they are "authorized".

Don't let the tinfoil-helmet brigade hear that... ;)






msg07670/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Keith Moore]

> I (and I believe Keith) think it is that latter point that needs to
> be explicitly stated in the BCP: Bringing official knowledge to the
> IETF is useful and important, but that does not give the delegate and
> special weight or privilege in the working group deliberations.

I'd go as far as to say that the Study Group's opinion doesn't contribute
to group consensus at all (though it may influence the opinion of
WG participants who do contribute to consensus).  And if the delegate
participates in decision-making, he/she should be expected to use 
his/her best personal engineering judgement about what's good for the 
entire Internet - just like any other IETF participant.

It's not just ITU-T I'm worried about - I'm also concerned about the
use of this as a precedent for other kinds of 'representatives'.

Keith

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Vernon Schryver]

> From: Pete Resnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> >this was meant as a way for the ITU-T management to say, in effect 
> >"he knows what is going on" - this was not intended to mean that any 
> >such designated person carries any more weight in IETF WG 
> >deliberations than does any other individual...
>
> I (and I believe Keith) think it is that latter point that needs to 
> be explicitly stated in the BCP: Bringing official knowledge to the 
> IETF is useful and important, but that does not give the delegate and 
> special weight or privilege in the working group deliberations.

Exactly.

Without explicit words limiting the power and authority of such official
representatives, you will have third parties thundering in working
groups that because the ITU representatives are officially sanctioned
by IETF rules, what they say is more important than what anyone else
says.  You will also have WG chairs cutting off debate because ITU
representatives have Spoken.  In other, better run WGs, you will have
endless arguments that because the IETF is now participating in the
ITU (as demonstrated by the existence of the official representatives)
and because there are no IETF words limiting the authority of the
official representatives, whatever the representatives say must matter.
There will be similar endless flamewars after Last Calls in the main
IETF list.

Never mind that it seems to me that the whole idea is based on the
crazy notion that because an ITU representative is official, what the
representative says will be complete and accurate.  People who are
careful to be complete and accurate are complete and accurate, while
others, whether officially designated or not, aren't.  The whole idea
seems based on a naive view of standards committee politics.  I'm
thinking in particular of an infamous case several years ago where an
official representative of one IEEE 802 group represented the results
of the group's deliberation to the upper layer opposite to the clear
voting majority of the group, but consistent with the position of the
representative's employeer.


Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[John Stracke]

>>(a) The publicly available working documents may not be up-to-date.
>
>They are up to date for ITU-T members.
>
>>(b) Most of the ITU's publicly available documents are not free.
>
>They are available to ITU-T members.

In the message I was responding to, you wrote:

>>>If I stand up (physically or virtually) in an IETF 
>>>meeting and say "the ITU-T is doing such and such", you can either 
believe 
>>>me or double check with the ITU.

My point was that I *cannot* double check.  You just confirmed it.

You're right that I still can't double-check someone authorized to speak 
for the ITU; but, if the ITU is careful about whom it authorizes, then 
such people may wind up building a reputation for 
trustworthiness--"they're probably right, or the ITU leadership 
wouldn't've authorized them".  And, if they get it wrong, then there's a 
known person to tie to the rails when the train wreck happens.

/==\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer   |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.  |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.  |
|==|
|No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife in the shoulderblades|
|will cramp his style. |
\==/

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Matt Holdrege]

At 10:36 AM 3/6/2002, John Stracke wrote:
> >No matter who claims what about the ITU or IETF, if you want to know for
> >sure, you can refer to the respective organization's published and/or
> >working documents.
>
>(a) The publicly available working documents may not be up-to-date.

They are up to date for ITU-T members.

>(b) Most of the ITU's publicly available documents are not free.

They are available to ITU-T members.

If you are not an ITU-T member, then you have no direct ability to tell if 
someone is giving you the straight scoop even if they are "authorized".

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[John Stracke]

>No matter who claims what about the ITU or IETF, if you want to know for 
>sure, you can refer to the respective organization's published and/or 
>working documents.

(a) The publicly available working documents may not be up-to-date.

(b) Most of the ITU's publicly available documents are not free.

/===\
|John Stracke|Principal Engineer|
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.   |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|===|
|We must be devious, cunning, inventive... too bad we're us.|
\===/

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Matt Holdrege]

No matter who claims what about the ITU or IETF, if you want to know for 
sure, you can refer to the respective organization's published and/or 
working documents. If I stand up (physically or virtually) in an IETF 
meeting and say "the ITU-T is doing such and such", you can either believe 
me or double check with the ITU. But the benefit remains that I stood up 
and brought your attention to the topic. I don't need to be an authorized 
ITU-T representative to do that. And I'll double check anything an 
authorized ITU-T representative says as well. So I don't see any benefit to 
this provision.

At 12:29 AM 3/6/2002, Amardeo Sarma wrote:
>.. the intention as I see it is to ensure that no misunderstandings arise
>because someone claims something is an "ITU-T view" when in fact it is not. I
>believe it is of high value to all sides to know when someone is stating 
>his or
>her personal view, and when someone is giving reliable information about the
>status in an entity of an organisation. The same is of course of great 
>value in
>the reverse direction.
>
>Amardeo Sarma, also ITU-T SG17 Co-Chair
>
>Quoting Pete Resnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On 3/5/02 at 1:22 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> >
> > >  > 3.2.2 ITU-T recognition at ISOC/IETF
> > >>
> > >> ITU-T Study Group Chairmen can authorize one or more members to
> > >> attend an IETF meeting as an official ITU-T delegate speaking
> > >> authoritatively on behalf of the Study Group (or a particular
> > >  >Rapporteur Group).
> > >
> > >I think it needs to be explicitly said that the opinions stated by
> > >such representatives are for information of the WG only and are not
> > >considered in determining WG consensus.
> >
> > I agree. The purpose of the liaison should be to keep the IETF
> > informed about the goings-on of the ITU. Insofar as the actions of
> > any other standards or commercial organization might have a
> > significant impact on the decisions of the working group (e.g.,
> > knowledge that a particular company has IPR, or that another
> > standards organization is deploying something that would conflict
> > with a WG proposal), having an official representative of the ITU
> > bring that information is fine. That's very much the same as when an
> > area director, with their "area director hat" on, gives a WG guidance
> > like, "The IESG is not going to let that document through without
> > mentioning security". However, like the AD, the ITU delegate should
> > have no more weight on consensus decisions than anyone else in the
> > working group.
> >
> > I'm very much with Keith that this needs to be spelled out in this
> > section.
> >
> > pr
> > --
> > Pete Resnick 
> > QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>Amardeo Sarma
>NEC Network Laboratories
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Scott Bradner]

Pete sez:
> I agree. The purpose of the liaison should be to keep the IETF 
> informed about the goings-on of the ITU. Insofar as the actions of 
> any other standards or commercial organization might have a 
> significant impact on the decisions of the working group (e.g., 
> knowledge that a particular company has IPR, or that another 
> standards organization is deploying something that would conflict 
> with a WG proposal), having an official representative of the ITU 
> bring that information is fine.

this is just what was intended here 

the reason behind this at all is that we have had cases of people 
representing to IETF WGs that they know what is going on in an ITU-T 
SG but it turned out that in some cases they did not know and thus 
mislead the listeners about what was going on in the ITU-T - this 
was meant as a way for the ITU-T management to say, in effect "he 
knows what is going on" - this was not intended to mean that any 
such designated person carries any more weight in IETF WG deliberations 
than does any other individual  - but as Pete points out, it can 
be useful to actually know what another group is or is not doing.

Scott

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Amardeo Sarma]

.. the intention as I see it is to ensure that no misunderstandings arise 
because someone claims something is an "ITU-T view" when in fact it is not. I 
believe it is of high value to all sides to know when someone is stating his or 
her personal view, and when someone is giving reliable information about the 
status in an entity of an organisation. The same is of course of great value in 
the reverse direction.

Amardeo Sarma, also ITU-T SG17 Co-Chair

Quoting Pete Resnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On 3/5/02 at 1:22 PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> >  > 3.2.2 ITU-T recognition at ISOC/IETF
> >>
> >> ITU-T Study Group Chairmen can authorize one or more members to
> >> attend an IETF meeting as an official ITU-T delegate speaking
> >> authoritatively on behalf of the Study Group (or a particular
> >  >Rapporteur Group).
> >
> >I think it needs to be explicitly said that the opinions stated by
> >such representatives are for information of the WG only and are not
> >considered in determining WG consensus.
> 
> I agree. The purpose of the liaison should be to keep the IETF 
> informed about the goings-on of the ITU. Insofar as the actions of 
> any other standards or commercial organization might have a 
> significant impact on the decisions of the working group (e.g., 
> knowledge that a particular company has IPR, or that another 
> standards organization is deploying something that would conflict 
> with a WG proposal), having an official representative of the ITU 
> bring that information is fine. That's very much the same as when an 
> area director, with their "area director hat" on, gives a WG guidance 
> like, "The IESG is not going to let that document through without 
> mentioning security". However, like the AD, the ITU delegate should 
> have no more weight on consensus decisions than anyone else in the 
> working group.
> 
> I'm very much with Keith that this needs to be spelled out in this
> section.
> 
> pr
> -- 
> Pete Resnick 
> QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
> 
> 




Amardeo Sarma
NEC Network Laboratories
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to Informational

[Keith Moore]

> 3.2.2 ITU-T recognition at ISOC/IETF
> 
>ITU-T Study Group Chairmen can authorize one or more members to
>attend an IETF meeting as an official ITU-T delegate speaking
>authoritatively on behalf of the Study Group (or a particular
>Rapporteur Group). 

This seems rather at odds with the tradition that IETF participants are
individuals who represent their own technical judgement rather than 
that of some other organization.  

I think it needs to be explicitly said that the opinions stated by
such representatives are for information of the WG only and are not 
considered in determining WG consensus.  The last thing we need is
to have delegates from other organizations given more consideration 
in IETF WGs than the technical judgement of individual IETF participants.

Keith