Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> However, I still have difficulties to understand the
>> merit of having ".ip6.int" or ".ip6.arpa" or even
>> ".mickey-mouse" for holding the reverse records. That
>> must be a 100 % political decision with no merit at all.
 
> Well... we *DO* need to agree on what the root of the reverse tree will
> be - otherwise it's hard to write tools that do reverse lookups. ;)

Fine, I have no problem with that statement.
 
> The politics starts when you realize that somebody owns the spot that
> you're parking the tree.

> Using .mickey-mouse is bad - there's *enough* Bad Karma attached to the
> whole TLD issue via ICANN and the like.

Sure, I also understand that there are many intercoursing
manureholes around there (is this term polite enough :-) ?
 
> Using .ip6.int or .ip6.arpa requires that the manager(s) of .int or .arpa
> agree/consent/support that usage (which they may not, for a number of
> reasons).   Looking at the SOA/NS entries for .INT and .ARPA is rather
> revealing.  I'm pretty sure that the current set of NS entries for .INT
> is sufficient to support reverse lookups under the current level of IP6
> deployment, but will require some major upgrading in the future. ;)

Therefore, I believe that meritocracy is fine at a WG
level. Unfortunately, it is not at the upper level like
IESG and IAB. Worse, requiring an ICANN BoD candidate
be highly technical skilled sounds like requiring Lou Gestner
(IBM, an ex cookie manager, http://www.ibm.com/lvg/ ) 
to understand the inner beauty of an IBM 360/91 pipeline 
processor.

Last, perhaps long time IETF participants (or whatever
the political term is), should take a sabbatical term: life 
is not just reading emails (especially on weekends)! Visiting 
South Africa is a good idea, to study on how a minority gave 
up its long time domination.

regards,

-- 
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
Get there in time:mirror on the wall-Genesis:tail -f trick

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:26:07 +0700, "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:

> However, I still have difficulties to understand the
> merit of having ".ip6.int" or ".ip6.arpa" or even
> ".mickey-mouse" for holding the reverse records. That 
> must be a 100 % political decision with no merit at all.

Well... we *DO* need to agree on what the root of the reverse tree will
be - otherwise it's hard to write tools that do reverse lookups. ;)

The politics starts when you realize that somebody owns the spot that
you're parking the tree.

Using .mickey-mouse is bad - there's *enough* Bad Karma attached to the
whole TLD issue via ICANN and the like.

Using .ip6.int or .ip6.arpa requires that the manager(s) of .int or .arpa
agree/consent/support that usage (which they may not, for a number of
reasons).   Looking at the SOA/NS entries for .INT and .ARPA is rather
revealing.  I'm pretty sure that the current set of NS entries for .INT
is sufficient to support reverse lookups under the current level of IP6
deployment, but will require some major upgrading in the future. ;)

-- 
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
  

 PGP signature

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Mahadevan Iyer]

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/1098/int.html
>
> DEERING: Whatever happens, the Web will be kept working; it's the dominant
> application. What we're seeing is people proposing new applications built on
> top of HTTP, because it goes through the firewalls or it's universally
> available, and, in fact, IP gets relegated to a single roll as a layer 2
> technology. HTTP is the universal connectivity.
>

For many non real-time applications, yes.   You cannot design a good telephone
or TV like service over HTTP..or TCP :)

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim]

Mike O'Dell wrote:

> it is a meritocracy of a quite rude and abrasive sort
> and that's neither an accident nor a bug

It is OK if a WG chair becomes the supreme commander
of any meritocracy, but not for the IESG or the IAB. 
Believing in mob consensus and running nose is fine too!

However, I still have difficulties to understand the
merit of having ".ip6.int" or ".ip6.arpa" or even
".mickey-mouse" for holding the reverse records. That 
must be a 100 % political decision with no merit at all.


regards,

-- 
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
Get there in time:mirror on the wall-Genesis:tail -f trick

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Jim Fleming]

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/1098/int.html

DEERING: Whatever happens, the Web will be kept working; it's the dominant
application. What we're seeing is people proposing new applications built on
top of HTTP, because it goes through the firewalls or it's universally
available, and, in fact, IP gets relegated to a single roll as a layer 2
technology. HTTP is the universal connectivity.

Concerning your [Postel's] comment about filling up the space, there is this
story about an experiment with an infinite number of monkeys with an
infinite number of typewriters generating the works of Shakespeare. Well,
we've done the experiment; we've deployed an infinite number of typewriters
and what they're [generating] is protocol specs.

CERF: We're getting the Shakespearean equivalent of "To be or not to be,
that is the grzzornay."


- Original Message -
From: "Melinda Shore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "grenville armitage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."


> > From: grenville armitage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Surely you mean that the truth has become a lie. Perhaps because
> > people are no longer holding WGs to the goal of running code, but
> > rather pandering to pressure for some 'democratic process'. Tyranny
> > of the masses rarely leads to excellence.
>
> "Tyranny of the masses" *would* be democracy, but there
> seems to be continued support for doing what people are
> calling "consensus."  Nevertheless, I don't think that
> what we're doing here could be considered consensus process
> according to any reasonable definition of the term.
> Consensus really is about process rather than product,
> and it requires investment in the process from all
> participants, which we certainly do not have here.
> Unilateralism, unwillingness to compromise, insults and
> derogation, and widespread weenie-waving work against
> consensus pretty much by definition.  What we seem to
> be working towards instead is rough agreement - not the
> same thing as rough consensus.  I don't think consensus
> is possible at the IETF, but it's interesting to
> consider whether or not we'd get better results if
> participants were more open.
>
> There's not a lot of printed material on consensus, but
> Michael Sheeran's "Beyond Majority Rule" is quite good.
>
> Melinda
>
>

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Melinda Shore]

> From: grenville armitage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Surely you mean that the truth has become a lie. Perhaps because
> people are no longer holding WGs to the goal of running code, but
> rather pandering to pressure for some 'democratic process'. Tyranny
> of the masses rarely leads to excellence.

"Tyranny of the masses" *would* be democracy, but there 
seems to be continued support for doing what people are
calling "consensus."  Nevertheless, I don't think that 
what we're doing here could be considered consensus process 
according to any reasonable definition of the term.  
Consensus really is about process rather than product, 
and it requires investment in the process from all 
participants, which we certainly do not have here.
Unilateralism, unwillingness to compromise, insults and
derogation, and widespread weenie-waving work against 
consensus pretty much by definition.  What we seem to 
be working towards instead is rough agreement - not the 
same thing as rough consensus.  I don't think consensus
is possible at the IETF, but it's interesting to 
consider whether or not we'd get better results if
participants were more open.

There's not a lot of printed material on consensus, but
Michael Sheeran's "Beyond Majority Rule" is quite good.

Melinda

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Melinda Shore]

> I gather you wouldn't have much sympathy for problem
> statements and requirements documents that are in process
> within several working groups now.  What do you think
> about, say, progress within the AAA working group,
> which has already finished those phases?

Any concerns about this might be mitigated by the fact
that more than one group is reverse engineering its
requirements from existing protocols.  (No, I don't
see this as a positive thing).

Melinda

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Pete Resnick]

On 6/23/01 at 1:05 PM -0700, Charles E. Perkins wrote:

>  > oh i agree!  the failure to start from working code
>>  is the perniscious failing of most modern IETF WGs
>
>I gather you wouldn't have much sympathy for problem
>statements and requirements documents that are in process
>within several working groups now.  What do you think
>about, say, progress within the AAA working group,
>which has already finished those phases?

Not to speak for Mike, but how about having this kind of work take 
place in the IRTF? It sounds an awful lot like research to me. When 
they're done with that and start writing something that looks like it 
might be code someday, bring it back into the IETF.

[Every time I bring up the idea of doing something like this in IRTF 
to IETF folks who are older and crustier than I am, I get lots of 
moans and eye-rolling, but no real explanation of why this is a bad 
idea. They seem to have a nice place and lots of space; why don't we 
just move in? It seems like the IRTF might also be a nice place to 
send some of the folks with half-baked ideas to keep them out of our 
hair, though Erik would probably be less interested in that.]

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick 
QUALCOMM Incorporated

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Charles E. Perkins]

Hello Mike,

> oh i agree!  the failure to start from working code
> is the perniscious failing of most modern IETF WGs

I gather you wouldn't have much sympathy for problem
statements and requirements documents that are in process
within several working groups now.  What do you think
about, say, progress within the AAA working group,
which has already finished those phases?

Regards,
Charlie P.

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[grenville armitage]

jamal wrote:

> Absolute bullshit on both quotes. Sometimes lies become truths

Surely you mean that the truth has become a lie. Perhaps because
people are no longer holding WGs to the goal of running code, but
rather pandering to pressure for some 'democratic process'. Tyranny
of the masses rarely leads to excellence.

cheers,
gja

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Mike O'Dell]

oh i agree!  the failure to start from working code
is the perniscious failing of most modern IETF WGs

-mo

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[jamal]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Randy Bush wrote:

> another major contributor speaks from deep experience.  much appreciated.
> 
>

Here we go again. Where art thou, my brother.

Dont just blame Major Contributors(tm).
Look at it from another angle:
It is just as much related to dripping sarcastic IESG directors who cant
stand the light when shone on them.
Things have changed. I like the IETF to go back to the way it was. I've
even been spotted with shorts and sandals.
Unfortunately it cant. I am not sure if Dave Clark would dare repeat
those same words given the opportunity today.
Dont stick to the same old rightenousness and still keep claim to have
Deep Experience (tm).

cheers,
jamal

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Theodore Tso]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 12:04:54PM -0400, Scott Brim wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2001 at 11:35 -0400, Mike O'Dell apparently wrote:
> > "We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
> >  We believe in rough consensus and running code."
> > -Dave Clark, Internet Architect
> 
> Despite the t-shirts and all, I continue to believe I heard him say
> "working" code.

I was there as well, while memory does get foggy over time, I'm pretty
sure I heard him say "running code", since I'm pretty sure that it was
in that same speech when Dave Clark made the joke that while sometimes
it seems like we believe in "running consensus and rough code", on the
whole the system works pretty well.

But of course, memory could be playing tricks on us all.

- Ted

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Randy Bush]

> Absolute bullshit on both quotes. Sometimes lies become truths
> for those who believe hard and see that king is infact well dressed
> rather than naked.
> Sure, the quotes sound sweet and beckon the revolutionary on.
> But please spare us the propaganda or what you'd like to refer to as the
> mantra.
> The IETF Does not believe in running code. The IETF used to.
> Very rarely do ideas come into existence and working groups getting formed
> because someone has running code.
> The Anonymous IESG area director does not know how to feel rough
> consensus s/he knows how to feel the wind ...
> So before you put on your righteous hat and select justice look around
> you; blessed are they who sit on a pin-head, for they shall rise fast.

another major contributor speaks from deep experience.  much appreciated.


randy

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Jim Fleming]

Maybe"rough consensus and working TLDs"???
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
"Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters"

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-NZ.com
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World


- Original Message - 
From: "Scott Brim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mike O'Dell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."


> On 23 Jun 2001 at 11:35 -0400, Mike O'Dell apparently wrote:
> > "We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
> >  We believe in rough consensus and running code."
> > -Dave Clark, Internet Architect
> 
> Despite the t-shirts and all, I continue to believe I heard him say
> "working" code.
> 

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[jamal]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Mike O'Dell wrote:

>
> "We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
>  We believe in rough consensus and running code."
>   -Dave Clark, Internet Architect
>
>  "I know rough consensus when I feel it."
>   -Anonymous IESG Area Director
>

Absolute bullshit on both quotes. Sometimes lies become truths
for those who believe hard and see that king is infact well dressed
rather than naked.
Sure, the quotes sound sweet and beckon the revolutionary on.
But please spare us the propaganda or what you'd like to refer to as the
mantra.
The IETF Does not believe in running code. The IETF used to.
Very rarely do ideas come into existence and working groups getting formed
because someone has running code.
The Anonymous IESG area director does not know how to feel rough
consensus s/he knows how to feel the wind ...
So before you put on your righteous hat and select justice look around
you; blessed are they who sit on a pin-head, for they shall rise fast.

cheers,
jamal

PS:
[This is not personally intended to you, rather people who post using
the same theme]

Leading Edge vs. Trailing Edge....Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Jim Fleming]

In my opinion, it is a matter of Leading Edge vs. Trailing Edge.
The IETF used to be a leading edge group. It created things.
Now the IETF is a trailing edge organization. It discovers things.
One of the problems with this is that when things are discovered,
IETF members claim they created them, and only reference their
own members.

I suppose if man ever lands on Mars, some people on Earth will
claim we built Mars, and then flew there...

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike O'Dell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 10:35 AM
Subject: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."


> 
> if so, you should stay far, far away from the IETF.
> 
> it is not "democratic", never has been and never should be
> 
> it is a meritocracy of a quite rude and abrasive sort
> and that's neither an accident nor a bug
> 
> good ideas don't need the benefit of the doubt
> 
> if you have an idea but it isn't yet baked enough
> to withstand a public proctological examination, keep working
> on it in private, among yourselves, however you choose
> to work, until it is baked and you can defend its
> architecture and design.  
> 
> THEN you can ask for a working group.
> 
> working groups attempting to design a half-baked idea
> not only don't get the benefit of the doubt, 
> they shouldn't get the benefit of existance in the first place.
> 
> "We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
>  We believe in rough consensus and running code."
> -Dave Clark, Internet Architect
> 
>  "I know rough consensus when I feel it."
> -Anonymous IESG Area Director
> 
> So much for parlimentarianism.
> 
> -mo
> ex-Anonymous IESG Area Director
> 

Re: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Scott Brim]

On 23 Jun 2001 at 11:35 -0400, Mike O'Dell apparently wrote:
> "We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
>  We believe in rough consensus and running code."
>   -Dave Clark, Internet Architect

Despite the t-shirts and all, I continue to believe I heard him say
"working" code.

"I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

[Mike O'Dell]

if so, you should stay far, far away from the IETF.

it is not "democratic", never has been and never should be

it is a meritocracy of a quite rude and abrasive sort
and that's neither an accident nor a bug

good ideas don't need the benefit of the doubt

if you have an idea but it isn't yet baked enough
to withstand a public proctological examination, keep working
on it in private, among yourselves, however you choose
to work, until it is baked and you can defend its
architecture and design.  

THEN you can ask for a working group.

working groups attempting to design a half-baked idea
not only don't get the benefit of the doubt, 
they shouldn't get the benefit of existance in the first place.

"We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
 We believe in rough consensus and running code."
-Dave Clark, Internet Architect

 "I know rough consensus when I feel it."
-Anonymous IESG Area Director

So much for parlimentarianism.

-mo
ex-Anonymous IESG Area Director