Re: Rude responses
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:36 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: I experienced rude respondings in IETF list That would be when you tried to get April 1 RFCs discontinued. No, I experienced rude response from some participants including you, and regarding yours I received a private email from one director that he ask me not to reply to you because he wants to handle it with you privately. I request that the IETF Chair to stop you from sending me any further emails, because you are changing the subject to personal issues. AB From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [abdussalambar...@gmail.com] Sent: 25 August 2013 12:27 To: Pete Resnick Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard) I experienced rude respondings in IETF list and in one WG list, I don't beleive that it is culture of IETF participants, but it seems that some people should understand to be polite and reasonable in such organisation business. Finally, the rude responding is not controled by the chair of thoes lists, therefore, thoes lists can be rude lists from time to time. AB
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-arms to handle inappropriate behaviour on this list? Though the last I recall that was Jordi, and that was probably ten years ago... Though it would be preferable if everyone were a bit more respectful of other posters, whether new or veteran. Tim
Re: Rude responses
As Seargeant-at-arms, this is my first and last warning. If this goes on, I will ask the secretariat to avoid further postings. Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com Responder a: abdussalambar...@gmail.com Fecha: martes, 27 de agosto de 2013 05:50 Para: l.w...@surrey.ac.uk CC: ietf ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Re: Rude responses On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 5:36 PM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: I experienced rude respondings in IETF list That would be when you tried to get April 1 RFCs discontinued. No, I experienced rude response from some participants including you, and regarding yours I received a private email from one director that he ask me not to reply to you because he wants to handle it with you privately. I request that the IETF Chair to stop you from sending me any further emails, because you are changing the subject to personal issues. AB From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [abdussalambar...@gmail.com] Sent: 25 August 2013 12:27 To: Pete Resnick Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard) I experienced rude respondings in IETF list and in one WG list, I don't beleive that it is culture of IETF participants, but it seems that some people should understand to be polite and reasonable in such organisation business. Finally, the rude responding is not controled by the chair of thoes lists, therefore, thoes lists can be rude lists from time to time. AB ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
I'm I was traveling and not having access to email Regards, Jordi -Mensaje original- De: Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Responder a: t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk Fecha: martes, 27 de agosto de 2013 06:51 Para: ietf ietf@ietf.org Asunto: Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?) Isn't there supposed to be a sergeant-at-arms to handle inappropriate behaviour on this list? Though the last I recall that was Jordi, and that was probably ten years ago... Though it would be preferable if everyone were a bit more respectful of other posters, whether new or veteran. Tim ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
FWIW, if we are going to go down that road, it would be worth noting that there are various kinds of rudeness that can occur on IETF mailing lists. To my mind, the most harmful of these is not outright rudeness. Outright rudeness is to be avoided, certainly. But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is not listening. Not trying to understand what the person who is speaking to you has said. Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully contradicts your own position, and not making a sincere effort to determine if they might be correct in contradicting your position. We have seen some incredible rudeness of this type in the recent spfbis discussion, with various supposedly smart people in our community utterly ignoring what their opponents are saying, and simply re-asserting their own position in a variety of ways. I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that we are discussing here. The endless litany of repeats of already-addressed discussion points raised on the spfbis mailing list has been incredibly harmful to discourse on the ietf mailing list. This exchange between l.wood and Abdussalam Baryun pales in comparison. Furthermore, I would also point out that criticism of someone's behavior is not rudeness, if that criticism is accurate. I don't think the IETF should be a context in which people ought to feel safe in behaving badly, as long as they behave badly in ways that are subtle enough not to be considered impolite. Nor should it be a context in which failure to behave according to some culturally-relative standard of politeness in itself invalidates an otherwise valid statement.
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is not listening. Not trying to understand what the person who is speaking to you has said. Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully contradicts your own position, and not making a sincere effort to determine if they might be correct in contradicting your position. We have seen some incredible rudeness of this type in the recent spfbis discussion, with various supposedly smart people in our community utterly ignoring what their opponents are saying, and simply re-asserting their own position in a variety of ways. I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that we are discussing here. The endless litany of repeats of already-addressed discussion points raised on the spfbis mailing list has been incredibly harmful to discourse on the ietf mailing list. IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms. The SAA is responsible for how things are said. The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would be responsible for the substance.
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
On 8/27/13 9:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that we are discussing here. That suggestion makes me want to say something a little rude. Managing the discussion is the chair's job, not the sergeant- at-arms's. Melinda
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
On Aug 27, 2013, at 1:20 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms. The SAA is responsible for how things are said. The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would be responsible for the substance. I think it should be fairly obvious even to one not practiced in the art that a lot of the postings to the ietf mailing list recently have been simple repeats of points previously made, with no additional substance, which, well intentioned or not, purely have the effect of making it harder to evaluate consensus. But sure, the responsible AD could also intervene.
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: I think it should be fairly obvious even to one not practiced in the art that a lot of the postings to the ietf mailing list recently have been simple repeats of points previously made, with no additional substance, +1 Alas, that statement applies to both posts which raise issues and posts which refute issues. which, well intentioned or not, purely have the effect of making it harder to evaluate consensus. I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here. For better or worse, current RFCs in standards track have boilerplate saying This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community... Unless and until this boilerplate changes, IESG members have an obligation to try to decide whether that statement is true. I'm _very_ glad I don't have that obligation! -- John Leslie j...@jlc.net
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
At 10:11 27-08-2013, Ted Lemon wrote: But the most rude behavior that ever occurs on IETF mailing lists is not listening. Not trying to understand what the person who is speaking to you has said. Not trying to figure out if what they said meaningfully contradicts your own position, and not making a sincere effort to determine if they might be correct in contradicting your position. Yes. We have seen some incredible rudeness of this type in the recent spfbis discussion, with various supposedly smart people in our community utterly ignoring what their opponents are saying, and simply re-asserting their own position in a variety of ways. I'll add the message from Scott Brim below and comment. At 10:20 27-08-2013, Scott Brim wrote: IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms. The SAA is responsible for how things are said. The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would be responsible for the substance. The shepherd would have to request PR-action on the grounds that there has been a BCP violation. That would cause other process issues. The community will remain quiet and the shepherd will take the fall. At 12:08 27-08-2013, John Leslie wrote: I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here. Me too. Regards, S. Moonesamy
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Leslie j...@jlc.net wrote: I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here. Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area. Lucky me... :)
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
On 8/27/13 2:53 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: On Aug 27, 2013, at 3:08 PM, John Lesliej...@jlc.net wrote: I feel sorry for Ted, who _does_ have to evaluate consensus here. Actually no, I don't—spfbis is apps area, not int area. Lucky me... :) See the message I just posted. Yes, the additional repetitions make it take longer, but really it's not so hard to say, Yep, that's already on my list of issues and toss the repetitious message aside. On 8/27/13 12:20 PM, Scott Brim wrote: On 8/27/13 9:11 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: I would expect the sergeant-at-arms to be reining in that sort of rudeness before reining in the sort of supposed overt rudeness that we are discussing here. IMHO that's not a job for the sergeant at arms. The SAA is responsible for how things are said. The shepherd -- or supershepherd or whatever -- would be responsible for the substance. On 8/27/13 12:31 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: That suggestion makes me want to say something a little rude. Managing the discussion is the chair's job, not the sergeant- at-arms's. Yeah, again, that's me. Also see my recent message. That said, I do wish it didn't take intervention on my part. I wish people would realize they're being repetitive. I wish people would stop responding to the repetition. (Neither is going to change my opinion of the consensus.) But then again, I also wish I had a pony. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
Sometimes there is a need for sarcasm. I find it very rude when people begin by lecturing a Working Group on the 'fact' that nobody understands the subject matter. This is not the exhibition of modesty etc. that it pretends to be, it is actually a trap designed to gull the WG into agreeing that they know nothing about the problem whereupon the original proposer will gladly provide the poor naifs with their pearls of wisdom. The correct response in such situations is in my book, 'you may speak for yourself and your own level of expertise but do not accuse others of sharing your inabilities'. I also find it very rude when people try to cut short a discussion with recourse to bogus points of processor try to trump a discussion with recourse to an authority that I know from private conversations to hold the exact opposite opinion to the one being attributed to them. What I found incredibly rude was when an AD and Working Group chair actually hissed when I gave my company name at the mic. But what I found worst was the fact that nobody seemed to be taking any notice at all of the four women who raised diversity issues at the mic in Orlando until I got up to the mic and mansplained the issue for you all.
Re: Rude responses (sergeant-at-arms?)
Hi Phillip, At 15:53 27-08-2013, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: What I found incredibly rude was when an AD and Working Group chair actually hissed when I gave my company name at the mic. I submitted draft-moonesamy-ietf-conduct-3184bis During the discussions (see thread at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00201.html )about the draft it was suggested there should be consequences of not following the code of conduct. What action would you suggest against: (i) the Area Director in a case such as the above? (ii) the Working Group chair in a case such as the above? Regards, S. Moonesamy
RE: Rude responses
I experienced rude respondings in IETF list That would be when you tried to get April 1 RFCs discontinued. in one WG list That would be MANET, when you lobbied for an acknowledgement on a draft you didn't write or contribute significantly to. Have you considered that being polite and reasonable on organisation business means both not making unreasonable requests, and first making an effort to understand the organisation whose business you are attempting to conduct? Your requests come from a clear lack of understanding of the IETF or how it works. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun [abdussalambar...@gmail.com] Sent: 25 August 2013 12:27 To: Pete Resnick Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard) I experienced rude respondings in IETF list and in one WG list, I don't beleive that it is culture of IETF participants, but it seems that some people should understand to be polite and reasonable in such organisation business. Finally, the rude responding is not controled by the chair of thoes lists, therefore, thoes lists can be rude lists from time to time. AB
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
I experienced rude respondings in IETF list and in one WG list, I don't beleive that it is culture of IETF participants, but it seems that some people should understand to be polite and reasonable in such organisation business. Finally, the rude responding is not controled by the chair of thoes lists, therefore, thoes lists can be rude lists from time to time. AB On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote: On 8/21/13 2:17 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: AD hat squarely on my head. On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: Oh. Now I understand. You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many years after the IETF approved it. Thanks. Very helpful. That's not an appropriate response. It is certainly not helpful to me as the consensus caller. And it is rude. Since you've made this a formal process point, I'll ask you to substantiate it carefully and also formally. The implication of your assessment is that IETF participants must not comment on the utility of comments by others. That's not what I said, and in fact if you look at the line immediately following what you quoted, you will see that I said: It's perfectly reasonable to say, This would constitute a new requirement and I don't think there is a good justification to pursue that line. It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that is problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that line of discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you want. It is the sarcasm and the rudeness that I am saying is unreasonable. Especially coming from a senior member of the community, the only purpose it seems to serve is to bully others into not participating in the conversation. If you think that the conversation has gone on too long, you're perfectly within rights to ask the manager of the thread (in this case, myself or the chairs), in public if you like, to make a call and say that the issue is closed. But again, the tactics displayed above are not professional and not reasonable rhetorical mode. I don't recall that being a proscribed behavior, since it has nothing to do with personalities. So, please explain this in a way that does not sound like Procrustean political correctness. I am not sure what the first sentence means. And I'm sorry that you believe that my stance on this is Procrustean. But the fact is that rude comments of this sort do not contribute to consensus-building in the least. For the record, I entirely acknowledge that my note has an edge to it and yes, of course alternate wording was possible. However the thread is attempting to reverse extensive and careful working group effort and to ignore widely deployed and essential operational realities, including published research data. I appreciate your input that you believe that some or all of the objectors are ignoring operational realities. Perhaps they are. But the fact is that Last Call is a time for the community to take a last look at WG output. If senior members of the community (among which there are several in this thread) are suspicious of the output, it *is* important to make sure that their concerns are addressed. Maybe they simply don't have all of the information. But maybe the WG has missed something essential in all that careful work. Both have historically happened many times. A bit of edge is warranted for such wasteful, distracting and destabilizing consumption of IETF resources. In fact an important problem with the alternate wording, such as you offered, is that it implies a possible utility in the thread that does not exist. It is far more distracting and destabilizing for the IETF to come out of a Last Call with experienced members of the community suspicious that a bad result has occurred, especially if the tactic used to end the discussion was sarcasm to chase people away from the discussion. You are looking at only the little picture. The consensus might end up on the rough side, but having the conversation has utility in and of itself. I find your edge much more disruptive to the conversation, making it much more adversarial than explanatory, and damaging the consensus that might be built. I think that lowers the utility of the output tremendously. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.**com/~presnick/http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt
Hi Aaron, I will add that it depends on that is there some one stopping rude actions in IETF, or is it just free to post any respond. I know that the procedure of IETF does mention such actions, but I don't see practicings so far, AB On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Aaron Yi DING aaron.d...@cl.cam.ac.ukwrote: The line between being Rude and being Upfront is tricky and highly context dependent. Aaron Thomas
RE: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
On 23 Aug 2013 04:22, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: LC should not be treated as a right of passage, to test the patience of folks who have developed a document. rite? Right - right or rite? Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: In pragmatic terms, the current operational model for a LC (and IESG) review tends to enforce no rules or limits to what can be challenged or suggested, while simultaneously expecting those who have been doing the work to then be responsible for educating the commenter and defending decisions in the document, at the level of re-arguing resolved issues. Your admonition that these folks are already at a disadvantage encourages this sense of obligation. However this is direct contradiction to our published rules for Last Call: RFC 2418, Working Group Guidelines and Procedures Section 8, Review of documents It is important to note that a Last-Call is intended as a brief, final check with the Internet community, to make sure that no important concerns have been missed or misunderstood. The Last-Call should not serve as a more general, in-depth review. Note that last sentence. It's the essential point, if we are to have any real /respect/ for the extended effort already put into developing the document. Remember the discussion about how last call is more like the middle of a document's evolution, and we should admit that in our process documentation? This is closely related. If, in reality, people are frustrated at the attempted rapid pace of last calls, then we should allow for that. We have time. We don't have to be like the ones we all know who sneer at anyone presuming to get in the way of their code going into production. Simple comments and questions -- your educating everyone who tracked the wrong group -- can be dealt with easily through referral. Even substantial ones can be directed to specific discussion threads. Real issues can be considered. It's only too late if we say it is, in our processes, and if an issue is substantial, it should never be too late.
Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
On 8/23/2013 11:06 AM, Scott Brim wrote: We don't have to be like the ones we all know who sneer at anyone presuming to get in the way of their code going into production. Since this is such a fundamental point, I'm sending this reply to emphasize: The concern I expressed had nothing at all to do with this. What prompted my note that in turn prompted Pete's was a form of counter-productive LC behavior that I consider to be abusive and since it was from a highly experienced participant, inexcusable. Serious questions and suggestions from serious reviewers/critics are /essential/ to IETF quality assurance and I have as little patience for the sneering you describe as anyone else. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
Dave Crocker wrote: On 8/23/2013 11:06 AM, Scott Brim wrote: We don't have to be like the ones we all know who sneer at anyone presuming to get in the way of their code going into production. Since this is such a fundamental point, I'm sending this reply to emphasize: The concern I expressed had nothing at all to do with this. What prompted my note that in turn prompted Pete's was a form of counter-productive LC behavior that I consider to be abusive and since it was from a highly experienced participant, inexcusable. Serious questions and suggestions from serious reviewers/critics are /essential/ to IETF quality assurance and I have as little patience for the sneering you describe as anyone else. d/ My particular concern is that you using this abusive argument increasingly against people leading to a next public suggestion to justify invoking IETF moderation, if necessary. Once a well respected senior member as yourself speaks as such, people do listen and its extremely intimidating to constantly see this threatening form of excommunications and moderation against folks. If one responds, then they are risk of getting labeled abusive, and hence moderation is invoked. In my opinion, I don't see highly debated issues like the SPF typ99e issue all the time with last calls. At least I don't or I don't get involved with it if its not related to my work. This rarity suggest that the IETF LC system still works and that we are simply experiencing a real divided technical infrastructure design issue that was highly predictable to be a conflict outside the working group. Pete suggested as much with fewer cross area reviews occurring within the IETF. I agree that this is one of those diversity improvements areas. Not enough cross area peer review before the WGLC and IETF LC takes place. The goal is to minimizes these contentious engineering issues. I have been involved with the SPF protocol before MARID, during MARID, an early adopter and also involved in the SPFBIS efforts. It is my assessment the SPFBIS WG did not receive adequate cross area reviews and DNS industry input *before* the removal decision was made, which was practically immediate and expected before the first draft was even written. Instead, the same already discussed arguments was used and the removal decision was implemented in the draft. In my opinion, there was significant concerns about the removal within the WG and outside the WG, yet the decision was made to pull it anyway at the IETF meeting. This immediately put the burden on everyone to reverse or at least get a better discussion going about keeping the migration path and also get a better handle of whats going on with the dearth in the supportive infrastructure for the handling of unknown RR types. In my opinion, it would be better to seek the input from DNS vendors to see what the future is regarding new RR types and passthru handling of unknown types (RFC 3597). I request reaching out to folks in Microsoft DNS product management to determine what has fell through the cracks. If there is continued lack of interest, then the SPF type99 removal is reasonable to me. You seem to think that this was already done. I don't think so. Perhaps you believe that the infrastructure will never be ready to support new RR types. If so, that is important to know. -- HLS
Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
Hi Dave, I read the messages on this thread. I suggested to the participant to comment. I am okay with the comments which were made. I had an off-list exchange before the message that generated the other thread. The exchange was not antagonistic. Some people read please read the archives as a requirement. That led to a misunderstanding. During a Last Call someone has to figure out what the issues are and whether they have been addressed or not. The misunderstandings do not make the work easier. Regards, S. Moonesamy
Re: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote: On 8/23/2013 11:06 AM, Scott Brim wrote: We don't have to be like the ones we all know who sneer at anyone presuming to get in the way of their code going into production. Since this is such a fundamental point, I'm sending this reply to emphasize: The concern I expressed had nothing at all to do with this. What prompted my note that in turn prompted Pete's was a form of counter-productive LC behavior that I consider to be abusive and since it was from a highly experienced participant, inexcusable. Serious questions and suggestions from serious reviewers/critics are /essential/ to IETF quality assurance and I have as little patience for the sneering you describe as anyone else. I think you were out of line because the type of issues being raised are precisely the type of issues that are appropriate to raise in IETF last call, indeed are the reason for having an IETF wide last call in the first place. If I see a WG railroading a scheme that I think is botched architecturally then of course IETF LC is the place to raise it. Adding in a requirement, sure. In this case the issues being raised are a repeat of the arguments made from ten years ago and I don't have much sympathy for them given the way the folk raising them behaved then and in particular their total lack of concern for the deployment issues raised by the group. But I don't criticize them on the process question, IETF LC is exactly the place to raise this issue. It is one area kibitzing on the work of another. That is an IETF layer issue for sure. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
On 8/21/13 4:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 8/21/2013 12:46 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that is problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that line of discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you want. It is the sarcasm and the rudeness that I am saying is unreasonable. Especially coming from a senior member of the community, OK. No sarcasm in IETF postings. Good luck with that. Luckily, again, that's not what I said or intended. Some evidence to the contrary, the IETF is a human endeavor. It involves interactions among people. So there will be sarcasm, and humor, and loss of temper, and comments with all sorts of embedded meanings. Sometimes these things lighten the mood, make the conversation more interesting, cause people to think about things in different ways, and contribute to the interaction. Sometimes they can have seriously problematic effects. Sometimes it will be unclear. And, even though some of our ranks appear to want it to be otherwise, there are no nice engineering specs for this. It's all very contextual, and is going to depend on the speakers and the listeners and the topic of conversation. Social interactions are complicated that way. But there is something going on in the present thread, and in particular the mode of communication I objected to here, that I think warrants pushback: More seriously... You might have noticed that there have been a variety of folk making unrealistic or misguided suggestions and that they have been receiving entirely muted and exploratory -- albeit negative -- responses. The implication that I think you've missed here is the obligation that should hold for a 'senior' participant who is lodging concerns. The current thread is being tenaciously pursued by another senior member and former AD and the line of objections and requirements being put forward are studiously ignoring the considerable efforts of the working group and the considerable practical field history. As such, they represent their own form of disrespect. I used the word bullying with regard to your particular message for a very specific reason. Bullying is normally using one's position of power to intimidate. I want to circle back a bit to the particulars of the SPF discussion: The SPFBIS WG came to the conclusion regarding deprecating the use of RR 99 through a very long discussion. There was an extensive review of data. (Indeed, there was some initial reluctance in the WG to do as much research into the numbers as was eventually done, and I think in the end everyone was glad that the WG did do as much work as it did on the topic.) There was an extensive discussion of the implications of all of the choices. And, with some rough edges, the WG pretty solidly convinced itself that it had chosen the right path. And not just that: The WG convinced both chairs that they had chosen the right path (one of the chairs being the chair of DNSEXT). And they convinced the responsible AD. And during WGLC they even convinced the responsible AD for DNSEXT, who was originally quite opposed, that the decision was well-considered and the correct one in the end. And I believe none of these folks were convinced because opposing views were kicked out of the conversation; data was presented and explanations were made, and they were convinced. Solid consensus was reached, such that as the eventual consensus caller, I am quite sure that I'm going to have to see a very carefully reasoned new argument in order for me to think that something was missed by this WG. Anyone currently outside of the consensus has a pretty high bar to clear; they are at a significant disadvantage in the conversation if they have an important point to make. So, now at the point of IETF LC, the correct thing to happen is to let folks make their objections, point them to places in the prior conversation where the WG, the chairs, the ADs, and assorted other folks became convinced, and see if their arguments have some new subtlety that was missed earlier. And try to explain. Remember, these folks are already at a disadvantage; they've got an uphill climb to convince anyone else (especially, me and the rest of the IESG) that this long-considered conclusion is incorrect. IMO, that's the time to cut them as much slack as possible, because if they do have a serious objection hidden in among things that we've seen before, we *all* should want to hear it. But that's not what's gone on. Some folks have simply dismissively said, Go read the archive, without pointers. I found that less-than-collegial, and the more dismissive folks I dropped a private note asking them to cool it. The dismissiveness AFAICT simply encourages people to post more comments without looking at the previous conversation. But your note went above and beyond. The sarcasm was sharp and directed. It seemed
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.comwrote: Some folks have simply dismissively said, Go read the archive, without pointers. Pete, I like your position, but I believe go read the archive or the equivalent will continue to be a standard response unless someone is responsible for giving a more thorough response. Who do you think that should be?
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org writes: The general point is that the new people whom we want to draw in as productive participants will be watching how we treat each other and deciding whether they want to wade into that pool. It's not just new people watching and being turned off. There are plenty of old timers who get turned off and I doubt I'm alone in thinking very carefully these days whether I want to wade into any particular discussion. Thomas
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
OK, direct question; I'll take the (short) time to give a direct answer. On 8/22/13 9:53 AM, Scott Brim wrote: Pete, I like your position, but I believe go read the archive or the equivalent will continue to be a standard response unless someone is responsible for giving a more thorough response. Who do you think that should be? It would be a bummer if it is entirely left to the AD/consensus caller or the chair/shepherd, but unfortunately the buck stops here, as they say. Eventually, it should be everyone's responsibility to help their colleagues. But obviously my rose-colored glasses are especially rosy today, other evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt
On 22/08/13 16:01, Thomas Narten wrote: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org writes: The general point is that the new people whom we want to draw in as productive participants will be watching how we treat each other and deciding whether they want to wade into that pool. It's not just new people watching and being turned off. There are plenty of old timers who get turned off and I doubt I'm alone in thinking very carefully these days whether I want to wade into any particular discussion. Thanks for pointing out this sensitive spot. It does exist, not just turning off, but even driving people away. Happen to know a such senior ietfer.. The line between being Rude and being Upfront is tricky and highly context dependent. Aaron Thomas
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
Pete, I like your position, but I believe go read the archive or the equivalent will continue to be a standard response unless someone is responsible for giving a more thorough response. Who do you think that should be? If you've had the most fleeting look at this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-leiba-extended-doc-shepherd/ ... then you'll know what *my* answer to that question is. Happily, this document has an excellent shepherd (see the Most Excellent(tm) shepherd report: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis/shepherdwriteup/ ), who has been posting summaries and pointers throughout the conversation. Perhaps said shepherd could give even better pointers; if so, a quiet message to him asking for specifics would surely be met with cheerful diligence. Barry
RE: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
I can't myself think of a good justification for sarcasm, (well, maybe [1]:-) good sarcasm is like good protocol design - many can recognise it, some can appreciate it, few can truly understand its nuances, and even fewer can create it. You're just not one of them. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
Pete, et al, On 8/22/2013 7:22 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: So, now at the point of IETF LC, the correct thing to happen is to let folks make their objections, point them to places in the prior conversation where the WG, the chairs, the ADs, and assorted other folks became convinced, and see if their arguments have some new subtlety that was missed earlier. And try to explain. Remember, these folks are already at a disadvantage; they've got an uphill climb to convince anyone else (especially, me and the rest of the IESG) that this long-considered conclusion is incorrect. IMO, that's the time to cut them as much slack as possible, because if they do have a serious objection hidden in among things that we've seen before, we *all* should want to hear it. ... So, now at the point of IETF LC, the correct thing to happen is to let folks make their objections, point them to places in the prior conversation where the WG, the chairs, the ADs, and assorted other folks became convinced, and see if their arguments have some new subtlety that was missed earlier. And try to explain. That's certainly a kind and gentle view of the obligations for handling LC comments. Kind and gentle on the folks making the comments. Not so kind or gentle or useful on the folks who have been spending months (or years) doing the work of developing the document. Therefore, I'm going to posit that your model is, in fact, critically flawed. (And on review I see there's an apt pun in that wording...) In pragmatic terms, the current operational model for a LC (and IESG) review tends to enforce no rules or limits to what can be challenged or suggested, while simultaneously expecting those who have been doing the work to then be responsible for educating the commenter and defending decisions in the document, at the level of re-arguing resolved issues. Your admonition that these folks are already at a disadvantage encourages this sense of obligation. However this is direct contradiction to our published rules for Last Call: RFC 2418, Working Group Guidelines and Procedures Section 8, Review of documents It is important to note that a Last-Call is intended as a brief, final check with the Internet community, to make sure that no important concerns have been missed or misunderstood. The Last-Call should not serve as a more general, in-depth review. Note that last sentence. It's the essential point, if we are to have any real /respect/ for the extended effort already put into developing the document. It contrasts completely from the burden that is regularly placed on such folk these days. In other words, those making comments have obligations too, but that is not being discussed here, except to make excuses for them. And it is the fundamental flaw with your line of thinking. In practical terms, that thinking suggests that rather than treat it as a joke, we take seriously and tolerate behavior matching the cliche I haven't read the spec, but I have some criticisms of your work. Besides mostly being incredibly wasteful, to the point of abuse, your model serves as its own disincentive for bringing work to the IETF; the hassle factor is just too damn high and, worse, the outcome too damn unpredictable. For all that we tout the occasional bit of added insight -- and I'm entirely in favor of those rare moments -- they are drowned out by the more predictable and dominant demands to re-explore old topics or new silly ones or to argue religious technical preferences. But that's not what's gone on. Some folks have simply dismissively said, Go read the archive, without pointers. Last Call is for catching oversights and errors. It is not for educating folk who chose not to track the working group. If someone cares enough to press for specific choices, they need to show up when the work is being done. If they don't care that much, then I'm sorry but we discussed that or go read the archives is in fact an entirely sufficient and complete response. That is, if the IETF has any real respect for the work that was done developing the document. [For completeness, I'll note that this is an issue where it makes sense to handle Individual Submissions quite differently. Here there is no archive of IETF group work, and so it is reasonable to demand of the authors a handling of Last Call comments that really does look more like education and marketing. But not for working group documents.] The dismissiveness AFAICT simply encourages people to post more comments without looking at the previous conversation. But your note went above and beyond. The sarcasm was sharp and directed. It seemed intent on ridiculing. That's quite a lot to lay onto my brief very constructive statement. Which isn't to say you are wrong; although the intensity of your reaction really goes considerably beyond the worth of such a single, brief comment, particularly one lacking an explicitly ad hominem component and especially given that it really
RE: The Last Call social contract (was - Re: Rude responses)
LC should not be treated as a right of passage, to test the patience of folks who have developed a document. rite? Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
On 8/21/13 2:17 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: On 8/21/2013 11:58 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: AD hat squarely on my head. On 8/21/13 1:29 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: Oh. Now I understand. You are trying to impose new requirements on the original work, many years after the IETF approved it. Thanks. Very helpful. That's not an appropriate response. It is certainly not helpful to me as the consensus caller. And it is rude. Since you've made this a formal process point, I'll ask you to substantiate it carefully and also formally. The implication of your assessment is that IETF participants must not comment on the utility of comments by others. That's not what I said, and in fact if you look at the line immediately following what you quoted, you will see that I said: It's perfectly reasonable to say, This would constitute a new requirement and I don't think there is a good justification to pursue that line. It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that is problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that line of discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you want. It is the sarcasm and the rudeness that I am saying is unreasonable. Especially coming from a senior member of the community, the only purpose it seems to serve is to bully others into not participating in the conversation. If you think that the conversation has gone on too long, you're perfectly within rights to ask the manager of the thread (in this case, myself or the chairs), in public if you like, to make a call and say that the issue is closed. But again, the tactics displayed above are not professional and not reasonable rhetorical mode. I don't recall that being a proscribed behavior, since it has nothing to do with personalities. So, please explain this in a way that does not sound like Procrustean political correctness. I am not sure what the first sentence means. And I'm sorry that you believe that my stance on this is Procrustean. But the fact is that rude comments of this sort do not contribute to consensus-building in the least. For the record, I entirely acknowledge that my note has an edge to it and yes, of course alternate wording was possible. However the thread is attempting to reverse extensive and careful working group effort and to ignore widely deployed and essential operational realities, including published research data. I appreciate your input that you believe that some or all of the objectors are ignoring operational realities. Perhaps they are. But the fact is that Last Call is a time for the community to take a last look at WG output. If senior members of the community (among which there are several in this thread) are suspicious of the output, it *is* important to make sure that their concerns are addressed. Maybe they simply don't have all of the information. But maybe the WG has missed something essential in all that careful work. Both have historically happened many times. A bit of edge is warranted for such wasteful, distracting and destabilizing consumption of IETF resources. In fact an important problem with the alternate wording, such as you offered, is that it implies a possible utility in the thread that does not exist. It is far more distracting and destabilizing for the IETF to come out of a Last Call with experienced members of the community suspicious that a bad result has occurred, especially if the tactic used to end the discussion was sarcasm to chase people away from the discussion. You are looking at only the little picture. The consensus might end up on the rough side, but having the conversation has utility in and of itself. I find your edge much more disruptive to the conversation, making it much more adversarial than explanatory, and damaging the consensus that might be built. I think that lowers the utility of the output tremendously. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
On 8/21/2013 12:46 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that is problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that line of discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you want. It is the sarcasm and the rudeness that I am saying is unreasonable. Especially coming from a senior member of the community, OK. No sarcasm in IETF postings. Good luck with that. More seriously... You might have noticed that there have been a variety of folk making unrealistic or misguided suggestions and that they have been receiving entirely muted and exploratory -- albeit negative -- responses. The implication that I think you've missed here is the obligation that should hold for a 'senior' participant who is lodging concerns. The current thread is being tenaciously pursued by another senior member and former AD and the line of objections and requirements being put forward are studiously ignoring the considerable efforts of the working group and the considerable practical field history. As such, they represent their own form of disrespect. The alternative phrasing you suggest makes sense for average, random, problematic criticism. But as I indicated in the previous note, the phrasing suffers from implying a degree of legitimacy that is not warranted for this thread, from another 'senior' participant. I realize you don't agree with that view, but I'll again note that I'm not aware of any formal rule that my posting violated and certainly not any pattern of IETF practice. (Of course I can read the Code of Conduct to the contrary, but having done that, I felt that each of its relevant points had a counter in this case.) I, too, preferred a far more constructive tone to the thread, and attempted to contribute that initially. But persistent unreasonableness, when it can't be attributed to ignorance, warrants an explicit note. So I gave it. Taking this thread seriously, even to the extent of treating it with a cautiously respectful tone, encourages a persistent silliness in the IETF that is strategically destructive, because it communicates our tolerance for having experienced participants waste people's time and effort. the only purpose it seems to serve is to bully others into not participating in the conversation. You think I could bully Patrik? Good luck with that, too. If you think that the conversation has gone on too long, you're perfectly within rights to ask the manager of the thread (in this case, myself or the chairs), in public if you like, to make a call and say that the issue is closed. But again, the tactics displayed above are not professional and not reasonable rhetorical mode. The thread itself does not have a professional premise, Pete. The record needs to reflect at least one comment to that effect. I don't recall that being a proscribed behavior, since it has nothing to do with personalities. So, please explain this in a way that does not sound like Procrustean political correctness. I am not sure what the first sentence means. And I'm sorry that you believe that my stance on this is Procrustean. But the fact is that rude comments of this sort do not contribute to consensus-building in the least. The thread has its own responsibility to attempt consensus building. It wasn't doing that. In fact, in its way, it has represented a classic, continuing of bullying against DNS pragmatics. For the record, I entirely acknowledge that my note has an edge to it and yes, of course alternate wording was possible. However the thread is attempting to reverse extensive and careful working group effort and to ignore widely deployed and essential operational realities, including published research data. I appreciate your input that you believe that some or all of the objectors are ignoring operational realities. I didn't say that. This current exchange is about a specific thread. It is now your turn to be more careful in what you assert. Perhaps they are. But the fact is that Last Call is a time for the community to take a last look at WG output. If senior members of the community (among which there are several in this thread) are suspicious of the output, it *is* important to make sure that their concerns are addressed. Only after determining that their concerns are reasonable. Maybe they simply don't have all of the information. But maybe the WG has missed something essential in all that careful work. Both have historically happened many times. Again, you are missing the point that we'd already done through quite a bit of that, with no apparent effect. It is far more distracting and destabilizing for the IETF to come out of a Last Call with experienced members of the community suspicious that a bad result has occurred, As an abstraction, your point is of course entirely valid. But your premise is that a reasonable discussion is possible and that
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
In this conversation between Pete and Dave, there's one point that's come up which has come up often enough that I want to call it out separately for comment: the only purpose it seems to serve is to bully others into not participating in the conversation. You think I could bully Patrik? Good luck with that, too. Let's take this out of the context of the discussion at hand, and be more general -- because, as I said, I'm reacting not to the statement as it stands, but to how often I've seen it made (twice within the last few weeks alone). The form is this: Point: You behaved badly toward [person X]. Counterpoint: Well, [person X] has been around, he can handle it. Often, there's a further response that agrees that, indeed, [person X] can take it, so all is OK. No. All is not OK. What this argument leaves out is consideration of everyone *else* who's reading this exchange and putting themselves in the shoes of [person X]. Many of them are looking at what to expect from engaging in IETF discussions, many of them are not old-timers with thick skins and an understanding of IETF rhetoric, and many of them will be put off of participating because they see how we treat those who do participate. Again, remember: I'm not talking about this particular discussion, so let's not fixate on whether or not being abrupt, sarcastic, abusive, offensive, profane, or whatever... is appropriate for this conversation. The general point is that the new people whom we want to draw in as productive participants will be watching how we treat each other and deciding whether they want to wade into that pool. Barry
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
On 08/21/2013 11:13 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: The general point is that the new people whom we want to draw in as productive participants will be watching how we treat each other and deciding whether they want to wade into that pool. Yes, that is a factor that merits attention. But not the only nor an always-overriding one. For example brevity matters, technical correctness wins, humour is important and can be cruel. I can't myself think of a good justification for sarcasm, (well, maybe [1]:-) but I can understand that sometimes people make mistakes. And sometimes the same people make the same mistakes many times. We're not here to make them better though. Calling 'em on it is a good way to handle it I think. Generalising to the point where we are all expected to be politically correct clones would not. (Yes, I'm exaggerating what you're saying there:-) S. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Father_Ted_characters and search for sarcastic:-)
Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)
Hello, Lars Eggert mentioned [1] the following: cool off, take the intensity out of the discussion, and try to provide data/facts for your different standpoints, so the rest of us who are sitting on the sidelines watching the fireworks can form an opinion. Regards, S. Moonesamy 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/diversity/current/msg00222.html
