RE: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

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.

[Misha Wolf]

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.

[Bruce Lilly]

>  Date: 2005-01-11 05:17
>  From: Misha Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> ÂMy 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? ÂI 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.

[Misha Wolf]

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.

[Misha Wolf]

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.

[Brian E Carpenter]

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.

[wayne]

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.

[John C Klensin]

--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.

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

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.

[Vernon Schryver]

> 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.

[Tom Petch]

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: 
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.)
>



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.

[Vernon Schryver]

> 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.

[Dave Crocker]

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.

[Misha Wolf]

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.

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--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.

[Juergen Schoenwaelder]

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
 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.

[Sam Hartman]

> "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.

[Tom Petch]

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]>; 
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.

[Vernon Schryver]

> 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.

[Ted Hardie]

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.

[John C Klensin]

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.

[Dave Crocker]

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.

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--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.

[Sam Hartman]

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.

[Eliot Lear]

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.

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

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

Re: individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.

[Dave Crocker]

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.

[Ted Hardie]

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.

[Tom Petch]

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]>; 
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.

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

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.

[Dave Crocker]

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.

[John C Klensin]

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.

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

[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

individual submission Last Call -- default yes/no.

[Dave Crocker]

>   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