Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01
One approach that may help avoid that blockage is to use a Quaker poll. [Yes, Yes, consensus, blah, blah] At the moment the mode of discourse is that everyone proposes their preferred solution. So the clear consensus that the three step process is not being applied is lost because everyone is encouraged to propose alternatives. I prefer a two step process, but I can live with a one step process. I do not see any value to a three step process and even if I did, we have fifteen years experience of that scheme not having worked. On the downrefs thing. I do not see a reason for a downref to block progress on standards track provided that the specification being referenced is stable (i.e. an RFC, not an Internet draft). I still think the ISDs are a good idea. There is a big problem with standards being fragmented across a series of documents without any document that ties them together. And there are currently overview documents that perform that role. But clearly the first priority has to be to fix the broken three step process. On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 2010-06-26 02:49, Russ Housley wrote: Phillip: Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that included the whole IESG. I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that there is another side to the story. We need to learn from the history, but we need to act toward improving the future. The IESG spent a huge amount of time on the NEWTRK documents in retreat. The ISD proposal hit the IESG in a very bad way. The ISD proposal required the IESG spend a lot of time that the individuals simply did not have. Further, this came at a very, very bad time. Admin-Rest had consumed way to many cycles. Perhaps the 1-step or 2-step proposals could have been separated from ISDs, but that was not the path that was taken. I do not know the reasons. I was General AD at the time. There was certainly no meeting of the minds between NEWTRK's rough consensus for the ISD proposal and the IESG's understanding of what ISDs would mean in practice. Also there was no sign of consensus in NEWTRK for moving to a 1-step or 2-step standards process as a first step, rather than ISDs as the first step. So basically we got collectively stuck. I tried setting up a special design team to unstick us and that didn't work either. Which is why, basically, I support the latest 2-step proposal, as a way to unstick this discussion and move in the direction of simplicity. Brian Russ On 6/24/2010 6:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: My point is that I am unable to have any characterization whatsoever since nobody has ever told me the reason that the changes did not go ahead. And since I have asked for reasons in a plenary and never got any statement that was not phrased in the passive voice, I don't think it is unfair to describe the decision as having been made in private. If the history is not confidential then I want to know what it was. Otherwise I don't see why it is inaccurate to describe the process as top down. If the process is going to be described as consensus based and bottom up then at a minimum the people who take the decision have to be prepared to state their reasons. On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com mailto:hous...@vigilsec.com wrote: I strongly disagree with this characterization. In my view, too many things got bundled together, and the thing that was unacceptable too the whole bundle down. Russ On 6/24/2010 2:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Last time the reforms were blocked without the IETF at large even knowing who was responsible. It was a decision the IESG took in private as if it only affected them and they were the only people who should have a say. So much for bottom up organization. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01
On 2010-06-26 02:49, Russ Housley wrote: Phillip: Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that included the whole IESG. I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that there is another side to the story. We need to learn from the history, but we need to act toward improving the future. The IESG spent a huge amount of time on the NEWTRK documents in retreat. The ISD proposal hit the IESG in a very bad way. The ISD proposal required the IESG spend a lot of time that the individuals simply did not have. Further, this came at a very, very bad time. Admin-Rest had consumed way to many cycles. Perhaps the 1-step or 2-step proposals could have been separated from ISDs, but that was not the path that was taken. I do not know the reasons. I was General AD at the time. There was certainly no meeting of the minds between NEWTRK's rough consensus for the ISD proposal and the IESG's understanding of what ISDs would mean in practice. Also there was no sign of consensus in NEWTRK for moving to a 1-step or 2-step standards process as a first step, rather than ISDs as the first step. So basically we got collectively stuck. I tried setting up a special design team to unstick us and that didn't work either. Which is why, basically, I support the latest 2-step proposal, as a way to unstick this discussion and move in the direction of simplicity. Brian Russ On 6/24/2010 6:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: My point is that I am unable to have any characterization whatsoever since nobody has ever told me the reason that the changes did not go ahead. And since I have asked for reasons in a plenary and never got any statement that was not phrased in the passive voice, I don't think it is unfair to describe the decision as having been made in private. If the history is not confidential then I want to know what it was. Otherwise I don't see why it is inaccurate to describe the process as top down. If the process is going to be described as consensus based and bottom up then at a minimum the people who take the decision have to be prepared to state their reasons. On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com mailto:hous...@vigilsec.com wrote: I strongly disagree with this characterization. In my view, too many things got bundled together, and the thing that was unacceptable too the whole bundle down. Russ On 6/24/2010 2:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Last time the reforms were blocked without the IETF at large even knowing who was responsible. It was a decision the IESG took in private as if it only affected them and they were the only people who should have a say. So much for bottom up organization. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01
Phillip: Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that included the whole IESG. I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that there is another side to the story. We need to learn from the history, but we need to act toward improving the future. The IESG spent a huge amount of time on the NEWTRK documents in retreat. The ISD proposal hit the IESG in a very bad way. The ISD proposal required the IESG spend a lot of time that the individuals simply did not have. Further, this came at a very, very bad time. Admin-Rest had consumed way to many cycles. Perhaps the 1-step or 2-step proposals could have been separated from ISDs, but that was not the path that was taken. I do not know the reasons. Russ On 6/24/2010 6:11 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: My point is that I am unable to have any characterization whatsoever since nobody has ever told me the reason that the changes did not go ahead. And since I have asked for reasons in a plenary and never got any statement that was not phrased in the passive voice, I don't think it is unfair to describe the decision as having been made in private. If the history is not confidential then I want to know what it was. Otherwise I don't see why it is inaccurate to describe the process as top down. If the process is going to be described as consensus based and bottom up then at a minimum the people who take the decision have to be prepared to state their reasons. On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com mailto:hous...@vigilsec.com wrote: I strongly disagree with this characterization. In my view, too many things got bundled together, and the thing that was unacceptable too the whole bundle down. Russ On 6/24/2010 2:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Last time the reforms were blocked without the IETF at large even knowing who was responsible. It was a decision the IESG took in private as if it only affected them and they were the only people who should have a say. So much for bottom up organization. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01
I've mentioned this to Russ privately, but it's worth saying it out loud ... Phillip: Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that included the whole IESG. I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that there is another side to the story. We need to learn from the history, but we need to act toward improving the future. The IESG spent a huge amount of time on the NEWTRK documents in retreat. The ISD proposal hit the IESG in a very bad way. The ISD proposal required the IESG spend a lot of time that the individuals simply did not have. Further, this came at a very, very bad time. Admin-Rest had consumed way to many cycles. Perhaps the 1-step or 2-step proposals could have been separated from ISDs, but that was not the path that was taken. I do not know the reasons. IESG discussions are now a lot more visible to anyone from the community who cares to look, than they were during any part of NEWTRK. Beginning in late 2005, the IESG has published narrative minutes from every official telechat (details at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/minutes/2010/ for this year). When I served as IESG scribe, there were VERY few unminuted discussions, and they were identified as executive session in the minutes. In addition, I THOUGHT Scott Bradner had requested publication of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd/, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I didn't see any IESG evaluation records for any of the NEWTRK documents, except for the DECRUFT draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment/). Speaking only for myself, I didn't know much about what the IESG thought before the NEWTRK session at IETF 63 in Paris, even though I was note-taker for every NEWTRK meeting, and I was an active working group participant (perhaps too active :-). I did not have the understanding about the IESG reaction to NEWTRK that Russ described in his note - and I don't think Russ is mistaken about that reaction. We have significantly improved the transparency of the IESG to the community since NEWTRK was on the docket. I can't tell you that Russ's current proposal will be accepted, but I think I can tell you that members of the community will better understand what the IESG's concerns are, and members of the community will understand which ADs have those concerns, so we can work on resolving them. This isn't a knock at anyone serving on the IESG during the NEWTRK era, all of whom except for Russ have moved on from their honorable service, and certainly not at Brian, who supported IESG narrative minutes as General Area Director when that was still controversial. It was just a different time. We still need to improve, of course, but it's fair to recognize the progress we've made. Thanks, Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01
The ISD proposal required the IESG spend a lot of time that the individuals simply did not have. so the IESG insisted - that was not the opinion of the newtrk chair (who thought that ISDs would likely reduce the load on ADs Further, this came at a very, very bad time and that, apparently, kept (at least some) members of the IESG from seriously considering what was being proposed this was not the IESG's finest hour - lets leave it at that Scott (ex) newtrk chair ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01
Yes, I agree that the IETF has become a lot more open than the self-perpetuating cabal that ran it during the mid 90s. We no have de-facto term limits for ADs and it is no longer considered acceptable for an AD to chair a working group (excepting process related groups chaired by the IETF chair). Gradually the IETF is shedding the constitutional innovations that were meant to be better than democracy in favor of processes and procedures that have been observed to work. No, I do not expect a repeat of last time when the NEWTRK proposals were killed in private and everyone sat in silence like a row of puddings when I asked them to explain their reasons in the plenary. At this point we do not have an assumption that the IESG operates by collective responsibility makes decisions for the whole IETF in private and then refuses to give reasons. That assumption is now dead, deceased, ... snuffed it, that is an ex-assumption. Just thought I would take the opportunity to point it out. On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote: I've mentioned this to Russ privately, but it's worth saying it out loud ... Phillip: Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that included the whole IESG. I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that there is another side to the story. We need to learn from the history, but we need to act toward improving the future. The IESG spent a huge amount of time on the NEWTRK documents in retreat. The ISD proposal hit the IESG in a very bad way. The ISD proposal required the IESG spend a lot of time that the individuals simply did not have. Further, this came at a very, very bad time. Admin-Rest had consumed way to many cycles. Perhaps the 1-step or 2-step proposals could have been separated from ISDs, but that was not the path that was taken. I do not know the reasons. IESG discussions are now a lot more visible to anyone from the community who cares to look, than they were during any part of NEWTRK. Beginning in late 2005, the IESG has published narrative minutes from every official telechat (details at http://www.ietf.org/iesg/minutes/2010/ for this year). When I served as IESG scribe, there were VERY few unminuted discussions, and they were identified as executive session in the minutes. In addition, I THOUGHT Scott Bradner had requested publication of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-repurposing-isd/, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back, but I didn't see any IESG evaluation records for any of the NEWTRK documents, except for the DECRUFT draft ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment/). Speaking only for myself, I didn't know much about what the IESG thought before the NEWTRK session at IETF 63 in Paris, even though I was note-taker for every NEWTRK meeting, and I was an active working group participant (perhaps too active :-). I did not have the understanding about the IESG reaction to NEWTRK that Russ described in his note - and I don't think Russ is mistaken about that reaction. We have significantly improved the transparency of the IESG to the community since NEWTRK was on the docket. I can't tell you that Russ's current proposal will be accepted, but I think I can tell you that members of the community will better understand what the IESG's concerns are, and members of the community will understand which ADs have those concerns, so we can work on resolving them. This isn't a knock at anyone serving on the IESG during the NEWTRK era, all of whom except for Russ have moved on from their honorable service, and certainly not at Brian, who supported IESG narrative minutes as General Area Director when that was still controversial. It was just a different time. We still need to improve, of course, but it's fair to recognize the progress we've made. Thanks, Spencer -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01
I strongly disagree with this characterization. In my view, too many things got bundled together, and the thing that was unacceptable too the whole bundle down. Russ On 6/24/2010 2:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: Last time the reforms were blocked without the IETF at large even knowing who was responsible. It was a decision the IESG took in private as if it only affected them and they were the only people who should have a say. So much for bottom up organization. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01
Dave: This observation was based on many hallway discussions with many people over many years. You are correct to observe that there are many factors at play, and many of them were discussed at the mic in plenary. The draft changes process in many different places. I've attempted to balance many differnt things in this proposal. Only community discussion will determine if the balance is acceptable. There is always risk in process changes. The goal is to make changes where the benefits outweigh the risk. Russ On 6/23/2010 5:25 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: Russ, In reading the latest version of your proposal, I finally realized that a motivating premise: o Since many documents are published as Proposed Standard and never advances to a higher maturity level, the initial publication receives much more scrutiny that is call for by RFC 2026 [1]. is well-intentioned, sounds reasonable, but is actually without any practical foundation. In other words, we do not know that the premise is valid. There are many likely reasons that the process of getting through the IESG, for Proposed, has become such a high burden. (Perhaps you did not mean to limit the reference to mean only IESG scrutiny, but in formal terms, it really is the only one that matters, in terms of 'scrutiny'.) I think that a detached and thorough exploration of those possible reasons is likely to show that the problem pre-dates the move towards leaving documents at Proposed and, in fact, well might have contributed to it. By virtue of having Proposed be so difficult to attain, there is a disincentive for going through the process again, for the same protocol. A tendency for all of us in this kind of topic is to make simple assertions of cause or of likely behavioral change that sound reasonable but have little empirical basis. We need to be careful to avoid falling into that trap, because the changes being discussed are strategic, and could well be impossible to reverse completely... d/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-01
Russ, In reading the latest version of your proposal, I finally realized that a motivating premise: o Since many documents are published as Proposed Standard and never advances to a higher maturity level, the initial publication receives much more scrutiny that is call for by RFC 2026 [1]. is well-intentioned, sounds reasonable, but is actually without any practical foundation. In other words, we do not know that the premise is valid. There are many likely reasons that the process of getting through the IESG, for Proposed, has become such a high burden. (Perhaps you did not mean to limit the reference to mean only IESG scrutiny, but in formal terms, it really is the only one that matters, in terms of 'scrutiny'.) I think that a detached and thorough exploration of those possible reasons is likely to show that the problem pre-dates the move towards leaving documents at Proposed and, in fact, well might have contributed to it. By virtue of having Proposed be so difficult to attain, there is a disincentive for going through the process again, for the same protocol. A tendency for all of us in this kind of topic is to make simple assertions of cause or of likely behavioral change that sound reasonable but have little empirical basis. We need to be careful to avoid falling into that trap, because the changes being discussed are strategic, and could well be impossible to reverse completely... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
