RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Bruce Lilly wrote: [lines re-wrapped and annotated with authors' initials] mw My understanding of the purpose of the IETF/W3C Liaison group mw is, precisely, liaison over issues of importance to both the mw IETF and the W3C. bl Since the draft-philips-... effort isn't an IETF effort, bl exactly who would represent the IETF, on what basis, and bl for what purpose? A first step could be to compare the two standards bodies' requirements for language tagging, to establish whether they are compatible. Further steps could follow, depending on the outcome. Note that while HTTP, for example, is an IETF standard, the Web relies on it. Currently, the same language tagging standard is used by HTTP, HTML's meta element, HTML's lang attribute and XML's xml:lang attribute. It would be very highly desirable to maintain this alignment. I don't know who would represent the IETF, or on what basis. mw I don't know mw what is the prevailing IETF position, but quite a few of the mw contributors to the langtags discussion have treated longevity mw of data and metadata as being of no importance (cf the debate mw over how to handle changes to ISO 3166 Codes for the Names of mw Countries). bl I believe that (being of no importance) is a gross bl mischaracterization which does not represent what bl *anybody* involved in the discussion since the December bl New Last Call has said, much less the claimed quite a few. The contributions I refer to (which are in the mail archive) appear to take a profoundly negative position regarding a principal goal of the draft, namely the stability of metadata. vs Then there was the awesome list of authorities that the IETF vs list members is ignoring at its peril. vs See http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33563.html mw Ignoring at its peril? I was simply demonstrating that mw standards bodies and individuals with long and respected track mw records have been involved for some years in the langtags work. bl You specifically stated that the draft-philips-... work has bl been carried out as an informal IETF/W3C/Unicode collaboration, bl and proceeded to list 3 W3C participants, 1 Unicode Consortium bl participant, mentioned a W3C WG and a Unicode Consortium bl project, but *no* IETF participation and of course no IETF bl WG. That remarkable comment -- IETF [...] collaboration bl with no IETF participation -- occurred after considerable bl discussion of the process. It also occurred two days after bl the close of the New Last Call, so I have until this latest bl reference back to that peculiar statement declined to comment bl on it. As has been stated before, the process followed with this draft appears to be precisely the same as that followed with RFC 3066 (BCP 47). Are you arguing that RFC 3066 too lacked IETF participation? Or are you saying that some aspect of the process caused that effort to include IETF participation but was lacking in the case of the current draft? bl Something is gravely wrong when an ad-hoc group believes bl that it is in collaboration with the IETF by ignoring bl published (RFC 2418) IETF procedures and protocols and by bl failing to advise or consult with established IETF groups bl likely to have an interest in the IETF standard which the bl ad-hoc group proposes to replace. See above. bl When a public gross mischaracterization of New Last Call bl discussion is piled on top of such claims of collaboration, bl we've gone well beyond gravely wrong. I'm dumbfounded bl and can't find a term to adequately portray my shock and bl horror at such outrageous remarks. I apologise for causing you such discomfort. -- Misha Wolf Standards Manager Chief Architecture Office Reuters -- -- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
At 14:37 12/01/2005, Misha Wolf wrote: A first step could be to compare the two standards bodies' requirements for language tagging, to establish whether they are compatible. Further steps could follow, depending on the outcome. Note that while HTTP, for example, is an IETF standard, the Web relies on it. Currently, the same language tagging standard is used by HTTP, HTML's meta element, HTML's lang attribute and XML's xml:lang attribute. Sorry to come back on the particulars of the langtags debate. I do this only to illustrate the real source of the problem (described in RFC 2418 part 2.3. Misha documents very well the source of the problem: the HTML lang attribute is acceptable for the Web (IMHO not for Semantic Web) and the xml:lang attribute is not scalable. One first reason (lack of scripting) has been identified. But this is not the only one. Another problem is obviously the declaration MUST which cannot scale and creates a problem. If I am correct the W3C documentation concerning xmls:lang is http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204/ paragraph 2.12 language definition. This document says: A special attribute named xml:lang MAY be inserted in documents to specify the language used in the contents and attribute values of any element in an XML document. In valid documents, this attribute, like any other, MUST be declared if it is used. The values of the attribute are language identifiers as defined by [IETF RFC 3066], Tags for the Identification of Languages, or its successor; in addition, the empty string MAY be specified. This definition does not permit end to end interinteligibility (hence interoperability for web services, content filtering, etc.) except in closed customer groups sharing the same language dictionary, grammar, semantic, etc. for an ISO 639 language. If the intent is a universal unique multilanguage, by one single provider, this works. Otherwise it does not. This is why in addition to adding the scripting one needs at list a type of usage/function and an authoritative source information. jfc jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
What John says below is good sense and IMHO should put the discussion of this subject to bed (ignoring subthreads where people have gone off on to other topics without changing the subject field). The phrase Last Call has built-in semantics. If something is sufficiently straightforward that the overhead of creating a WG is pointless, and if the last call message carries the sort of text John suggests, I don't see an issue. Brian John C Klensin wrote: Hi. In the hope of making part of this discussion concrete and moving it a step forward, rather than (or in addition to) debates about philosophy, let me make two suggestions: (1) Last Calls for independent submission and similar standards-track (and BCP) documents should include, explicitly, (i) An indication that it is not a WG submission. (ii) An explicit request for comments on whether the material is appropriate for IETF standardization (independent of the correctness/ appropriateness of its technical content), as well as (iii) The usual request for comment on technical content. (2) Any explanations of why the document is relevant, what problems it solves, what individuals or groups are and are not supporting it, etc., that might help the community reach a conclusion about the second point above should be either part of the document itself or part of a supplemental informational document that is included in the Last Call. These suggestions are independent of discussions about defaults, etc., and would, I think, be helpful for all non-WG submissions, even though they will obviously be more important for some than for others. And, since the IESG decides what is Last Called and what is not, and about the content of Last Call announcements, I think it is something you can just do if you or the community think it would be helpful. john ___ 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: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Vernon Schryver wrote: [some lines re-wrapped] vs Please credit some of us with understanding the meaning of vs escalate in the intended sense of evoke to an authority that vs will issue a writ of mandamus. *I* certainly did not intend such a meaning. Maybe I used the wrong word; if so I apologise. I meant something along the lines of refer. My understanding of the purpose of the IETF/W3C Liaison group is, precisely, liaison over issues of importance to both the IETF and the W3C. There can be differences of emphasis in the two groups, due to the different (though, I hope, complementary) nature of the work being done by both. For example, the W3C is very concerned about the longevity of data and metadata. I don't know what is the prevailing IETF position, but quite a few of the contributors to the langtags discussion have treated longevity of data and metadata as being of no importance (cf the debate over how to handle changes to ISO 3166 Codes for the Names of Countries). I consider this to be a fundamental issue. vs Other words in Mr. Wolf's message including any course of vs action which would cause a parting of the ways were not lacking vs in forcefulness. Indeed. It would, self-evidently, be bad for the Internet were these various standards bodies not able to agree on a common course of action. The danger of such an outcome requires forceful language. vs Then there was the awesome list of authorities that the IETF vs list members is ignoring at its peril. vs See http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33563.html Ignoring at its peril? I was simply demonstrating that standards bodies and individuals with long and respected track records have been involved for some years in the langtags work. I was responding to mails which claimed that there is no support for this work. vs When I read Mr. Wolf's message the first time, I was reminded of vs an IETF slogan about rejecting kings and presidents as well as vs ancient friction between the DDN protocol designers and users vs and the ISO. I see. The IETF embodies participation and democracy and all other standards groups are the preserves of hierarchical posturing? An interesting point of view. -- Misha Wolf Standards Manager Chief Architecture Office Reuters -- -- Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Hi John, Your mail [1] puzzles me. I don't think I suggested that the W3C is developing language tags. On the contrary, I wrote [2]: | The W3C is highly dependent on the RFC 1766/3066 family of RFCs, | as language-handling in HTML and XML is delegated to these RFCs. | Within the W3C, the responsibility for keeping an eye on these | RFCs lies with the I18N WG. I also did not suggest most of the other things which you imply that I had suggested. The facts of the matter are: - various IETF protocols and data structures make use of language tags - various W3C protocols and data structures make use of language tags There are a number of important issues needing resolution, including the stability of language tags over time. The current draft attempts to deal with these. I note your characterisation of the IETF/W3C liaison (as only tackling formal projects that both bodies are engaged in, etc). You may be quite correct, though one might be forgiven for forming a different impression, looking at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail Archives IETF/W3C coordination: identification of areas of overlap, coordination of reviews, and meeting coverage. and: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ietf-w3c/2002Jun/0001.html announcing [EMAIL PROTECTED] [too long to quote] and: http://www.w3.org/2001/11/StdLiaison#IETF [which lists I18N under W3C Activities affected] I have no idea where you got all the other strange ideas you appear to attribute to me (about overruling the IESG etc), so I won't respond to them. [1] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33603.html [2] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33553.html -- Misha Wolf Standards Manager Chief Architecture Office Reuters --- - Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Date: 2005-01-11 05:17 From: Misha Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] My understanding of the purpose of the IETF/W3C Liaison group is, precisely, liaison over issues of importance to both the IETF and the W3C. Since the draft-philips-... effort isn't an IETF effort, exactly who would represent the IETF, on what basis, and for what purpose? I don't know what is the prevailing IETF position, but quite a few of the contributors to the langtags discussion have treated longevity of data and metadata as being of no importance (cf the debate over how to handle changes to ISO 3166 Codes for the Names of Countries). I believe that (being of no importance) is a gross mischaracterization which does not represent what *anybody* involved in the discussion since the December New Last Call has said, much less the claimed quite a few. vs Then there was the awesome list of authorities that the IETF vs list members is ignoring at its peril. vs See http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33563.html Ignoring at its peril? I was simply demonstrating that standards bodies and individuals with long and respected track records have been involved for some years in the langtags work. You specifically stated that the draft-philips-... work has been carried out as an informal IETF/W3C/Unicode collaboration, and proceeded to list 3 W3C participants, 1 Unicode Consortium participant, mentioned a W3C WG and a Unicode Consortium project, but *no* IETF participation and of course no IETF WG. That remarkable comment -- IETF [...] collaboration with no IETF participation -- occurred after considerable discussion of the process. It also occurred two days after the close of the New Last Call, so I have until this latest reference back to that peculiar statement declined to comment on it. Something is gravely wrong when an ad-hoc group believes that it is in collaboration with the IETF by ignoring published (RFC 2418) IETF procedures and protocols and by failing to advise or consult with established IETF groups likely to have an interest in the IETF standard which the ad-hoc group proposes to replace. When a public gross mischaracterization of New Last Call discussion is piled on top of such claims of collaboration, we've gone well beyond gravely wrong. I'm dumbfounded and can't find a term to adequately portray my shock and horror at such outrageous remarks. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
--On 7. januar 2005 13:43 -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that we are talking about an individual submission, two points from your list are curious: 1. The last point is at least confusing, since the submission comes *after* the work has been done; otherwise it would be a working group effort; so I do not know what additional work you are envisioning. Generally, someone who sees a problem and considers writing a draft to address it will at least briefly wonder whether a working group should be chartered for it or not. I was not talking about only the stuff that happens around Last Call time. 2. Since there is no track record for the work -- given that it has not been done in an IETF working group -- then what is the basis for assessing its community support, absent Last Call comments? How are either of these assessed for an individual submission, if not by requiring a Last Call to elicit substantial and serious commentary of support? Following the IETF's tradition of personal responsibility, the AD is responsible for having ascertained that there is reasonable reason to believe that there are good reasons to think that the document should be published before issuing the Last Call. How that is done varies. (for instance, in the case of the updated WHOIS specification, there were about five people who were groaning about the stupidity of having an IETF standards-track specification that people read as if it said that WHOIS records have to include a phone number - then Leslie said OK, I'll draft it, and all of the people on the chain of approval were aware of the issues that the draft was trying to address, and thought that it was obviously a good idea to address them. The relative lack of Last Call comments was then interpreted as the community seems to have found no fault with our judgment that this makes sense to do. And I think that was the right outcome for that particular case.) Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:43:32 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: s much as we might like the handy default yes/default no terminology, the reality is that individual submissions for the standards track have varying levels of support and interest when they reach the point of IETF Last Call. Defaulting all proposals to no that have no working group behind them collapses that too far, in my personal opinion. If one believes that the IETF has no problem with publishing useless, wasteful specifications and no problem with excessive concentration of authority and responsibility in the IESG, then by all means, the model you, Harald and Sam espouse should remain. Unfortunately, the IETF community has repeatedly, and even formally, expressed concern about both of these issues, so I was merely noting a pretty straightforward means of dealing with both of them, in regards individual submissions seeking IETF approval. Rather than be mystical assessors of vague sources of support, the IESG needs to make major decisions more transparent. With respect to approval of IETF documents, that is one of the reasons for Last Call. And as I noted, it used to be used for that quite pointedly. The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be demonstrated ON THE RECORD. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Hi. In the hope of making part of this discussion concrete and moving it a step forward, rather than (or in addition to) debates about philosophy, let me make two suggestions: (1) Last Calls for independent submission and similar standards-track (and BCP) documents should include, explicitly, (i) An indication that it is not a WG submission. (ii) An explicit request for comments on whether the material is appropriate for IETF standardization (independent of the correctness/ appropriateness of its technical content), as well as (iii) The usual request for comment on technical content. (2) Any explanations of why the document is relevant, what problems it solves, what individuals or groups are and are not supporting it, etc., that might help the community reach a conclusion about the second point above should be either part of the document itself or part of a supplemental informational document that is included in the Last Call. These suggestions are independent of discussions about defaults, etc., and would, I think, be helpful for all non-WG submissions, even though they will obviously be more important for some than for others. And, since the IESG decides what is Last Called and what is not, and about the content of Last Call announcements, I think it is something you can just do if you or the community think it would be helpful. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote: The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be demonstrated ON THE RECORD. d/ And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records. When we have a mailing list like ietf-types or ietf-languages where there is a long term community of interest around a specific issue, should a discussion there be taken into account when assessing an individual submission? I think the answer is it depends and certainly may be yes. It should not over-ride other discussion or be given extraordinary weight, but I do think that the evidence there of interest, support, and consideration of issues raised should be taken into account. That's why I believe saying default yes or default no at Last Call is too black and white. I suggest that we try to include pointers to these discussions in the Last Call text, so that the community has the transparency it needs to assess these previous discussions. That will require a change in behavior, though, as I've been told by several senior folk that they don't read the Last Call additional text at all if the draft name alone convinces them they need to read the document; this was in the context of the considerable additional explanatory text included with the langtags New Last Call. Other suggestions on how to highlight this to the community reviewing a document at Last Call are more than welcome. regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
From: Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records. When we have a mailing list like ietf-types or ietf-languages where there is a long term community of interest around a specific issue, should a discussion there be taken into account when assessing an individual submission? I think the answer is it depends and certainly may be yes. It should not over-ride ... I'm bothered by the talk of community of interest and support as if they were fungible, as if every community of interest is the same as the IETF. That is a potentially catastrophic slippery slope. There are very good reasons for IEEE PARs. Turf is the most fought over commodity of standards organizations. Turf is more highly valued than any single document. Letting random groups of people call themselves communities and so automagically give themselves the IETF imprimatur is a very bad thing. Whether the random group has a mailing list that includes the string ietf in its private part should be obviously irrelevant, but judging from recent cases, isn't. Whether the group's mailing list happens to use an ietf.org domain name is close to irrelevant. Whether the supposed community includes leaders of other standards organizations should also obviously be irrelevant, but evidently isn't. Instead of a default no for BCPs or standards track RFC from individual submissions, it would be better to make it a simple no. If the IETF does not feel like investing the substantial effort and delays to form a WG and the rest of the tiresome, formal IETF dance, then that in itself is proof that the issue is unworthy of the IETF's official seal. Previous efforts to borrow the IETF's printing press and official seal have involved Informational. Evidently the many forces that want to borrow the IETF's seal have figured out that Informational is not valuable enough and are trying a new tactic. Giving BCP or standards track to individual submissions is evil on more than one front. It's not just that it risks blessing non-standards and deluting the value of BCP and the standards track. It is evidence that the IETF as an organization is getting lazy about its real work. If every I-D were worth publishing, there would never have been a need for WGs, Last Calls, and the rest. The whole community consensus thing is absolutely required for anything that deserves the word standard. You can't have a worthwhile standards publisher without the work of editing. Other standards bodies use voting. Book publishers use editors. The IETF uses consensus. Letting the editors off the hook for jobs will have results as bad in their own way as results we saw from letting the directors of Enron and MCI sleep on their jobs. The IESG, IAB, and ADs are not the IETF and do not define the IETF consensus. They might gauge it, but if it does not exist outside them, then it does not exist. It is definitely not good that the IETF is spending so much time writing a job description and paying so little attention to ostensibly important Internet standards like language tags. It's not only true that A [standards committee's] gotta know [its] limitations, but it must also know what it doesn't care about enough to work on. If the IETF doesn't want to work on language tags by having a WG and the rest of those delays and work, then so be it. Let the standards body that evidently does care do it...unless the incredible I'm gona tell the Liason on you threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing as usual that it sounded like. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
M My take is that by the time we get to last call, we may be trying to do - are IMHO in the case of the I-D that kicked this off - things that were better done earlier. I can track I-Ds courtesy of the IETF mauling list (whoops Freudian slip:-) and can take it upon myself to read them but may still have no idea where - if anywhere - a discussion is taking place by whom and I may be prevented from taking part in that discussion anyway; and for me that is the lack of openness that is at the heart of the problem I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues, hopefully resolve them, before last call. Then a default yes could make sense. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Ted Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 7:06 PM Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no. At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote: The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be demonstrated ON THE RECORD. d/ And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records. When we have a mailing list like ietf-types or ietf-languages where there is a long term community of interest around a specific issue, should a discussion there be taken into account when assessing an individual submission? I think the answer is it depends and certainly may be yes. It should not over-ride other discussion or be given extraordinary weight, but I do think that the evidence there of interest, support, and consideration of issues raised should be taken into account. That's why I believe saying default yes or default no at Last Call is too black and white. I suggest that we try to include pointers to these discussions in the Last Call text, so that the community has the transparency it needs to assess these previous discussions. That will require a change in behavior, though, as I've been told by several senior folk that they don't read the Last Call additional text at all if the draft name alone convinces them they need to read the document; this was in the context of the considerable additional explanatory text included with the langtags New Last Call. Other suggestions on how to highlight this to the community reviewing a document at Last Call are more than welcome. regards, Ted Hardie ___ 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: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Tom == Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom I believe any individual submission should have a publicly Tom identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed Tom in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues, Tom hopefully resolve them, before last call. I believe sending such comments to ietf@ietf.org is a reasonable thing for you to do. Certainly that is what I would do if I had a public comment about a pre-last-call individual draft for which I didn't explicitly know of a better place. I recommend copying authors on such comments. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:52:36PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: [...] The whole community consensus thing is absolutely required for anything that deserves the word standard. [...] I would like to recall that new documents enter the standards-track as Proposed Standards and there are various ways to proceed from there (one of them is direct transition to Historic) and a long way to go for becoming Standard. So even if the IESG (a group of people we should trust - at least someone should be there you should trust ;-) made a bad decision and nobody recognized the IETF last call, then there are still several ways and mechanisms to fix the decision before something becomes a standard. (And mind you: a standards-track document which is not deployed is just a sequence of bits in a storage device.) [I do understand what people are concerned about here but I also find it important to remind myself from time to time how we are all working towards raising the bar, and once raised, someone will speak up to raise it even further. Why are we not trusting the system that has worked remarkable well most of the time so far? Perhaps thats human nature - if I look what it takes to release a new Linux kernel these days or how difficult it is to make the next Debian release, I may conclude that raising the bar is a normal part of such societies.] /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/ P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
--On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: M My take is that by the time we get to last call, we may be trying to do - are IMHO in the case of the I-D that kicked this off - things that were better done earlier. I can track I-Ds courtesy of the IETF mauling list (whoops Freudian slip:-) and can take it upon myself to read them but may still have no idea where - if anywhere - a discussion is taking place by whom and I may be prevented from taking part in that discussion anyway; and for me that is the lack of openness that is at the heart of the problem I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues, hopefully resolve them, before last call. Then a default yes could make sense. So do I. It's one of the pieces of advice I always give to I-D writers. It is, unfortunately, not often followed. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Vernon Schryver wrote: vs unless the incredible I'm gona tell the Liason on you vs threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing vs as usual that it sounded like. That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my: mw Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever it likes, mw but I would urge that any course of action which would mw cause a parting of the ways between the IETF and the W3C mw (and other Industry Consortia) should be avoided. I mw suggest that it may be time to escalate this matter to mw the IETF/W3C Liaison group. Where is the threat? I was suggesting that as the IETF and the W3C have a liaison group and as there appear to be disagreements as to how to move forward, the matter be raised at the liaison group. Is that not what such groups are for? -- Misha Wolf Standards Manager Chief Architecture Office Reuters --- - Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com Get closer to the financial markets with Reuters Messaging - for more information and to register, visit http://www.reuters.com/messaging Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:15:46 +0100, Eliot Lear wrote: You make an assumption here that there is some relationship between the usefulness of a standard done from a working group and those individual submissions. Actually, i was not intending to indicate such a relationship, nor do i believe it exists. Good and lousy work come from both sources... I was indicating that the IETF standardization requires indication of community support. We take the working group record as strong input to that indication, but that individual submissions lack any equivalent record. I am intrigued that IESG leadership apparently feels it acceptable to take the activity of random mailing lists, that have no IETF process standing and no IETF oversight, as sufficient indication of community support. Ultimately, taking such input as sufficient calls to question the need for ever forming a working group. But, then, even for established working groups, we seem to be ready to standardize things that show active support by literally only a few people. If there were a recent track record of successful, widespread, large-scale adoption for IETF standards, then that sort of random, subjective, opaque assessment process might be acceptable. Alas, there isn't, so it isn't. On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:54:39 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: Dave, I think that the requirements for a successful last call depend on how much review and interest have been demonstrated before the last call. To repeat my response to John K: My comments were in response to an explicit statement that the community doesn't care much and my comments included the statement A standards process is primarily about gaining community support for a common way of doing something. Thanks for noticing that there is a difference between having no indication of community support, versus there are a number of people who see a need for it. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:06:40 -0800, Ted Hardie wrote: suggest that we try to include pointers to these discussions in the Last Call text, so that the community has the transparency it needs to assess these previous discussions. ahh, now. that certainly seems like a good idea, however, one needs to be careful that this does not turn into statements like there are x years of discussion on the foo mailing list; go read it all. ultimately, that's not very helpful for making an assessment. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:52:36 -0700 (MST), Vernon Schryver wrote: Instead of a default no for BCPs or standards track RFC from individual submissions, it would be better to make it a simple no. If the IETF does not feel like investing the substantial effort and delays to form a WG and the rest of the tiresome, formal IETF dance, then that in itself is proof that the issue is unworthy of the IETF's official seal I do not agree with this recommendation. I think individual submissions are a good alternative in some cases. However I think Vernon's posting does point to a very good set of questions. Namely, what is the purpose of IETF standardization, as distinct from IETF specification development? What is the incremental value of that going through IETF-wide approval? Here are my own answers: 1. There is an independent technical community assessment of efficacy and safety for the specification 2. The is hand-off of the specification's ownership to the IETF. I see these both as extremely valuable. The question that follows is whether we are conducting the IETF individual submission process that ensures a reality for both of these? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [EMAIL PROTECTED] [I do understand what people are concerned about here but I also find it important to remind myself from time to time how we are all working towards raising the bar, and once raised, someone will speak up to raise it even further. Why are we not trusting the system that has worked remarkable well most of the time so far? Perhaps thats human nature - if I look what it takes to release a new Linux kernel these days or how difficult it is to make the next Debian release, I may conclude that raising the bar is a normal part of such societies.] That is seriously wrong. The issue does not involve rising bars, but falling bars that need to be caught or at least seen to be falling. The IETF is, as it has been for 10 or 15 years, under attack from those who use it for ends not consciously chosen by the IETF. 15 years ago there would have been blank looks of incredulity to the suggestion that an outside, sometimes ostensibly ad hoc and other times supposedly offical standards organization should push through a document with as official a designation as BCP without the let, leave, or hindrance of IETF consensus. However, that is the case today. 10 years ago no one would have considered the notion that individual submissions should become official standards (of course I include Proposed as an offical IETF standard) of the IETF with a yes vote assumed from everyone outside the IESG. Of course, 20 years or 25 years ago, things were nominally different. In practical terms, the bar was higher still. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
In principle, the process for moving in stages from I-D to Full Standard is a good one, but only for those who know and respect the different categories. Increasingly, I get the impression that those not au fait with the workings of the IETF see an I-D as a considered piece of work, to be referenced as if was almost a standard; which is sometimes true, sometimes not. We can tell the difference, in lots of ways, others may not, so I would like more indication from the first that an I-D, particularly an individual submission, is an idea on the table, for discussion, with a mailing list attached where the discussion can happen. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 10:16 PM Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no. On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 12:52:36PM -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote: [...] The whole community consensus thing is absolutely required for anything that deserves the word standard. [...] I would like to recall that new documents enter the standards-track as Proposed Standards and there are various ways to proceed from there (one of them is direct transition to Historic) and a long way to go for becoming Standard. So even if the IESG (a group of people we should trust - at least someone should be there you should trust ;-) made a bad decision and nobody recognized the IETF last call, then there are still several ways and mechanisms to fix the decision before something becomes a standard. (And mind you: a standards-track document which is not deployed is just a sequence of bits in a storage device.) snip ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
From: Misha Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs unless the incredible I'm gona tell the Liason on you vs threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing vs as usual that it sounded like. That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my: mw Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever it likes, mw but I would urge that any course of action which would mw cause a parting of the ways between the IETF and the W3C mw (and other Industry Consortia) should be avoided. I mw suggest that it may be time to escalate this matter to mw the IETF/W3C Liaison group. Where is the threat? I was suggesting that as the IETF and the W3C have a liaison group and as there appear to be disagreements as to how to move forward, the matter be raised at the liaison group. Is that not what such groups are for? Please credit some of us with understanding the meaning of escalate in the intended sense of evoke to an authority that will issue a writ of mandamus. Other words in Mr. Wolf's message including any course of action which would cause a parting of the ways were not lacking in forcefulness. Then there was the awesome list of authorities that the IETF list members is ignoring at its peril. See http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg33563.html When I read Mr. Wolf's message the first time, I was reminded of an IETF slogan about rejecting kings and presidents as well as ancient friction between the DDN protocol designers and users and the ISO. I suspect that the language tag saga is not as bad as it seems and that some good new IETF documents might come of it. It should also serve as a red flag for another instance of the general problem of the quality of IETF documents. Vernon Schryver[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
At 19:06 10/01/2005, Ted Hardie wrote: At 9:00 AM -0800 1/10/05, Dave Crocker wrote: The way to make it obvious that there is serious community support for adopting an individual submission is to require that the support be demonstrated ON THE RECORD. And the point I'm trying to make is that there are multiple records. Dear Ted, I suppose you want to say there are multiple types of records, not that there could be different records at the same time. There is only one single record: the one published by the IESG. Usually it is a WG, but obviously there might be a procedure to have a private list published, when a formal WG is not deemed worth being created. Otherwise, concerned people cannot know which one is _the_ record. Also, the first community support is demonstrated by the IAB approval of the WG charter. There are already too many lists to follow. The IAB charter approval is what makes the difference between work and lobbying. Best regards. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 21:29 + Misha Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vernon Schryver wrote: vs unless the incredible I'm gona tell the Liason on you vs threat was the vacuous, standards committee politicing vs as usual that it sounded like. That appears to be a rather paranoid reading of my: mw Now the IETF is, of course, free to do whatever it likes, mw but I would urge that any course of action which would mw cause a parting of the ways between the IETF and the W3C mw (and other Industry Consortia) should be avoided. I mw suggest that it may be time to escalate this matter to mw the IETF/W3C Liaison group. Where is the threat? I was suggesting that as the IETF and the W3C have a liaison group and as there appear to be disagreements as to how to move forward, the matter be raised at the liaison group. Is that not what such groups are for? Misha, Ignoring, for the moment, several other aspects of your statement that I, and apparently some others, found upsetting, liaison or groups like that one are usually constituted to sort out issues arising between real or official projects of the relevant groups. In some cases, they can be, and have been, used very effectively to sort out issues arising between the projects or work program of one group and somewhat-related work program items of the other group. But, in this case, * We have been assured that there is no W3C project in this area. * There is also no IETF project in this area: we have no mechanisms for having projects outside of the WG process and activities for which the IAB or IRTF formally sign up (and it is always an open question whether the latter two are IETF projects or not). * And, regardless of the fact that some people are doing work in both places, there is no formal liaison between the IETF and W3C over language tag issues (and the IETF has never recognized informal liaisons as having any standing). So, while I'm much in favor of the ability of that particular coordination group to discuss whatever its members find interesting, I can't imagine what you think a discussion there would accomplish in this case. It has no ability to create IETF WGs, even though several of its members are IESG members who might participate in a WG creating process. Not even the IESG has the ability to retroactively turn a design team-like discussion into a WG. Similarly that group has no authority to turn this effort into a W3C project with which the IETF would feel an obligation to coordinate. And certainly it can't create a joint standards development activity or overrule the IESG on a decision about consensus in the _IETF_ community. So I'm having trouble seeing that suggestion as helpful. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: --On mandag, januar 10, 2005 19:47:43 +0100 Tom Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe any individual submission should have a publicly identified, publicly accessible mailing list, perhaps listed in the I-D announcement, so that we can raise issues, hopefully resolve them, before last call. Then a default yes could make sense. So do I. It's one of the pieces of advice I always give to I-D writers. It is, unfortunately, not often followed. Well, that may well depend on how far along the I-D is, but in the ID checklist section 3.8 found on the rfc-editor's website (see: http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html#anchor6 ), it explicitly says: Avoid text that will become outdated after RFC is published. Examples include non-permanent URLs, mentions of specific mailing lists as places to send comments on a document, or referring to specific WGs as a place to perform specific future actions (e.g., reviewing followup documents). So, even if an I-D starts out with information about where to discuss the draft, it needs to be removed once it gets close to being final. Also, even if the I-D has this information, it isn't in the announcement. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a manditory section in all I-Ds that lists this information, and *only* this information. Then that info could be easily put into the announcement and the RFC-editor could remove that section before publication. -wayne ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Dave, You make an assumption here that there is some relationship between the usefulness of a standard done from a working group and those individual submissions. Is that assumption borne out in truth? Just asking. I haven't checked too much. Eliot Dave Crocker wrote: On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:46:41 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: - there are a number of people who see a need for it - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work on it - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done Harald, Given that we are talking about an individual submission, two points from your list are curious: 1. The last point is at least confusing, since the submission comes *after* the work has been done; otherwise it would be a working group effort; so I do not know what additional work you are envisioning. 2. Since there is no track record for the work -- given that it has not been done in an IETF working group -- then what is the basis for assessing its community support, abssent Last Call comments? If one has no concern for the IETF's producing useless and unsupported specifications, then it does not much matter whether marginal specifications are passed. However the IESG's diligence at seeking perfection in working group output submitted for approval suggests that, indeed, there is concern both for efficacy and safety. How are either of these assessed for an individual submission, if not by requiring a Last Call to elicit substantial and serious commentary of support? d/ ps. The IESG used to be very forceful in requiring explicit statements (demonstrations) of community support; . I suspect we have moved, instead, towards delegating the assessment almost entirely to our representatives and their subjective preferences for work that is submitted. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ 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: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Dave, I think that the requirements for a successful last call depend on how much review and interest have been demonstrated before the last call. For example, I recently last called draft-housley-cms-fw-wrap. It received no last call comments. What should I do with the draft? Well, in that case, I knew the draft had been reviewed (and changed based on comments) by several people in the S/MIME and security community. I also knew there was work on implementations and specific customers who plan to use the standard if approved. In my judgement as an AD, that was sufficient to justify bringing the document to the IESG even given no support in last call. There might very well be cases wher I'd bring a document to last call wher I was skeptical of the utility of the standard. I'd actually suspect that other tools for judging sufficient support before bringing a document to last call might be better, but last call is certainly a tool for judging support. In such a case, I might conclude that no comments were insufficient support. In conclusion, it seems like the ADs sponsoring documents have significant latitude in this area and that is a reasonable way for things to work. The community can complain that a standard is useless during last call; you can even say things like I don't see the point; if others don't chime in and say they would use this, please do not publish. In addition, the community has multiple ways of giving feedback if they believe that there are systemic problems in the criteria ADs are using. --Sam ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
[note - this note does NOT talk about the language tags document] Recent standards-track/BCP RFCs that came in as individual submisssions (you can tell this from the draft name in the rfc-editor.xml file): RFC 3936 - draft-kompella-rsvp-change RFC 3935 - draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission RFC 3934 - draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update RFC 3915 - draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp RFC 3912 - draft-daigle-rfc954bis Apart from draft-alvestrand, I don't remember any of these causing much of a stir at Last Call. Still, I think the decision to advance them was appropriate. The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: - there are a number of people who see a need for it - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work on it - someone thinks that this isn't controversial enough for a WG, isn't work enough that the extra effort of setting up a WG is worth it, is too urgently needed to wait for a WG to get up to speed, or other version of doesn't fit with our WG process - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done A default no doesn't seem like a correct procedure here. Harald --On 6. januar 2005 10:48 -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However the reason why many things come in as individual submissions is that the community doesn't care much. I sure hope you are very, very wrong. If the community does not care much, then I do not see the purpose in making it an IETF standard. A standards process is primarily about gaining community support for a common way of doing something. So if the IESG is satisfied enough to put out a last call, and nobody responds -- it doesn't have community support -- the default community position shouldn't be no but no objection. That's a default 'yes'. We already have a problem with producing specifications that no one uses. A default 'yes' on outside submissions makes it likely we will get lots more. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ 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: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Harald, Using these --and my recent experience with draft-klensin-ip-service-terms, which is still in the RFC Editor's queue-- as examples, let me suggest that advancing all of them is still consistent with what I took Dave to be suggesting. In each case, there was evidence of a problem that some people felt was worth solving. There was no indication that there was controversy in the community about whether they were right on the problem (again, independent of whether they were right on the solution). For the IESG to look at a completely quiet last call (or at least quiet on the problem statement) and say looks like there is interest, like the problem is real, and there is no sign of lack of consensus seems to me to be a reasonable position. But, if the Last Call produces an argument about whether the problem being solved is reasonable or relevant to the community, _then_ I think the burden shifts to the advocates to demonstrate that there really is adequate community support for the idea _and_ for their solution. And, if there isn't relatively clear consensus on the answers, the default had best be either no or if there is really enough interest, it is time to start thinking about WGs or equivalent mechanisms (which is a different form of no where approval as an individual submission is involved). I don't know if that is what Dave intended, but it is how I interpreted his default no condition. It does bother me that we can approve a something as a standards-track document about which everyone but the authors and the IESG are sound asleep, but the solution to that problem is for the community to wake up and start taking responsibility. john --On Friday, 07 January, 2005 10:46 +0100 Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [note - this note does NOT talk about the language tags document] Recent standards-track/BCP RFCs that came in as individual submisssions (you can tell this from the draft name in the rfc-editor.xml file): RFC 3936 - draft-kompella-rsvp-change RFC 3935 - draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission RFC 3934 - draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update RFC 3915 - draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp RFC 3912 - draft-daigle-rfc954bis Apart from draft-alvestrand, I don't remember any of these causing much of a stir at Last Call. Still, I think the decision to advance them was appropriate. The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: - there are a number of people who see a need for it - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work on it - someone thinks that this isn't controversial enough for a WG, isn't work enough that the extra effort of setting up a WG is worth it, is too urgently needed to wait for a WG to get up to speed, or other version of doesn't fit with our WG process - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done A default no doesn't seem like a correct procedure here. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 06:59:19 -0500, John C Klensin wrote: In each case, there was evidence of a problem that some people felt was worth solving. My comments were in response to an explicit statement that the community doesn't care much and my comments included the statement A standards process is primarily about gaining community support for a common way of doing something. Thanks for noticing that there is a difference between having no indication of community support, versus there are a number of people who see a need for it. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Harald, This does not discuss the language tags comment. This case however provides some experience. The real problem I see is the increased need of Practice Documentation. RFC 3066 is a BCP yet it introduces issues (and the proposed RFC 3066bis does more) which are not established but proposed or even modified practices, without the proper debate with other areas some consider as concerned (IDN, OPES, Web Services, architecture, etc.) what an IAB approved charter would have warranted. In this case there is also the oddity of a private list bearing responsibilities on the IANA. You say this may happen when the matter has not been considered being worth a WG. I have nothing to object to that. But I can document that in this particular case I sent you a private mail a few months ago asking guidance on the way to organize a WG. You did not signaled me your ietf list. I can also only note this is a consistent position with the IAB/IESG, since RFC 3869 does not even allude to the matter. That some's positions are more equal than other is a feature of 1st generation networks, so I will not object. But I suggest this calls for a better WG proposition track. In this case a WG would have saved time and harassment (I am used to be insulted and I have no problem with it, should it help). IRT the need of PB documentation. This case shows that there would have been no problem and full consensus if the BEST as documented in RFC 2026.5.1 could have been replaced by a DOCUMENTED or by a SUGGESTED. This made me a supposed main and odious and gerrymandering etc... opponent of the draft. Should the author have been able to present a DCP for what is already in use, and an SCP for what he proposes, we would now considered how to continue further, may be along the working protocol I documented. I can quote many other areas where such a SCP/DCP use could lead to a progressive practice aggregation or transition and innovation. Regards. jfc At 10:46 07/01/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: [note - this note does NOT talk about the language tags document] Recent standards-track/BCP RFCs that came in as individual submisssions (you can tell this from the draft name in the rfc-editor.xml file): RFC 3936 - draft-kompella-rsvp-change RFC 3935 - draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission RFC 3934 - draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update RFC 3915 - draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp RFC 3912 - draft-daigle-rfc954bis Apart from draft-alvestrand, I don't remember any of these causing much of a stir at Last Call. Still, I think the decision to advance them was appropriate. The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: - there are a number of people who see a need for it - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work on it - someone thinks that this isn't controversial enough for a WG, isn't work enough that the extra effort of setting up a WG is worth it, is too urgently needed to wait for a WG to get up to speed, or other version of doesn't fit with our WG process - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done A default no doesn't seem like a correct procedure here. Harald --On 6. januar 2005 10:48 -0800 Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However the reason why many things come in as individual submissions is that the community doesn't care much. I sure hope you are very, very wrong. If the community does not care much, then I do not see the purpose in making it an IETF standard. A standards process is primarily about gaining community support for a common way of doing something. So if the IESG is satisfied enough to put out a last call, and nobody responds -- it doesn't have community support -- the default community position shouldn't be no but no objection. That's a default 'yes'. We already have a problem with producing specifications that no one uses. A default 'yes' on outside submissions makes it likely we will get lots more. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ 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
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Looking at the recent announcements of I-Ds, I think we will get a substantial number of URI/URL related drafts in the coming months which will also test this procedure. Their revision numbers are clocking up so they are being discussed but not AFAICS on any IETF-related list. And these seem to be standards track. I am in the 'default no' camp. Tom Petch - Original Message - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dave Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:46 AM Subject: Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no. [note - this note does NOT talk about the language tags document] Recent standards-track/BCP RFCs that came in as individual submisssions (you can tell this from the draft name in the rfc-editor.xml file): RFC 3936 - draft-kompella-rsvp-change RFC 3935 - draft-alvestrand-ietf-mission RFC 3934 - draft-wasserman-rfc2418-ml-update RFC 3915 - draft-hollenbeck-epp-rgp RFC 3912 - draft-daigle-rfc954bis Apart from draft-alvestrand, I don't remember any of these causing much of a stir at Last Call. Still, I think the decision to advance them was appropriate. The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: - there are a number of people who see a need for it - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work on it - someone thinks that this isn't controversial enough for a WG, isn't work enough that the extra effort of setting up a WG is worth it, is too urgently needed to wait for a WG to get up to speed, or other version of doesn't fit with our WG process - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done A default no doesn't seem like a correct procedure here. Harald .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
At 6:07 PM +0100 1/7/05, Tom Petch wrote: Looking at the recent announcements of I-Ds, I think we will get a substantial number of URI/URL related drafts in the coming months which will also test this procedure. Their revision numbers are clocking up so they are being discussed but not AFAICS on any IETF-related list. And these seem to be standards track. URI-related drafts are discussed on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list. This was the list of the IETF URI working group, when it was active, and it is still used by the URI community to discuss URI schemes and updates to the URI standards. With the publication of the core URI spec as a standard (RFC 2396bis), there are several efforts under way to clean up the related standards. One of those efforts is to move the existing scheme definitions in RFC 1738 into separate documents, so that RFC 1738 can be declared obsolete. A second effort is to move the registration procedures for URI schemes onto a new basis, since the existing basis has resulted in organizations minting unregistered schemes. Lastly, there is the usual traffic of documents for new schemes, like the SNMP URI scheme recently discussed; these last may not be individual submissions, since the working group chartered for the protocol tends to develop the documents for its URI scheme. The URI mailing list acts there only as a useful source of reviewers. As much as we might like the handy default yes/default no terminology, the reality is that individual submissions for the standards track have varying levels of support and interest when they reach the point of IETF Last Call. Defaulting all proposals to no that have no working group behind them collapses that too far, in my personal opinion. The important point to me is that the Last Call gives an opportunity for the IETF community as a whole to give a cross-area review of a proposal. Feedback at this stage is crucial to determining whether a proposal will have positive, negative, or no effect on the parts of the Internet infrastructure which are not the core competence of the draft's authors. Working groups tend to have broader sets of competence than individual authors or design teams, but it is this same benefit that we seek with each Last Call. regards, Ted Hardie ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 10:46:41 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: The usual case for an individual submission is, I think: - there are a number of people who see a need for it - there are a (usually far lower) number of people who are willing to work on it - nobody's significantly opposed to getting the work done Harald, Given that we are talking about an individual submission, two points from your list are curious: 1. The last point is at least confusing, since the submission comes *after* the work has been done; otherwise it would be a working group effort; so I do not know what additional work you are envisioning. 2. Since there is no track record for the work -- given that it has not been done in an IETF working group -- then what is the basis for assessing its community support, abssent Last Call comments? If one has no concern for the IETF's producing useless and unsupported specifications, then it does not much matter whether marginal specifications are passed. However the IESG's diligence at seeking perfection in working group output submitted for approval suggests that, indeed, there is concern both for efficacy and safety. How are either of these assessed for an individual submission, if not by requiring a Last Call to elicit substantial and serious commentary of support? d/ ps. The IESG used to be very forceful in requiring explicit statements (demonstrations) of community support; . I suspect we have moved, instead, towards delegating the assessment almost entirely to our representatives and their subjective preferences for work that is submitted. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.
Dear Ted, the experience of this Last Call shown the problem comes from the diversity of the internet. You may feel that a proposed solution is minor in your area and not realize that it has a big impact in others areas. This is why WGs are important: their Charters are the only place for some kind of coordination of the internet architecture. Otherwise the only time for concerned areas to exchange is the Last Call. Too late. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
