-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Facts, please, not handwaving [Re: Its about mandate RE: Why cant
the IETF embrace an open Election Process]
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:09:22 +0200
Phill,
As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active participants
that produces
--On Wednesday, 20 September, 2006 08:23 -0400 Scott Bradner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spencer remembered:
My understanding (as author of three of the proposals) was
that for most of the time newtrk was in existence, the
working group's attention was focused on ISDs as a way of
avoiding
to expand on John's ps
for those of you who were not involved or who have forgotten the details
the note the IESG sent about their review of the ISD idea can be found at
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/msg01076.html
but the feeling that the WG got from the IESG review is better
On Sep 21, 2006, at 5:08 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
Having seen the consequences of one-step standards processes,
especially in environments in which the standards designers are not
very closely tied to products that are shipping or ready to ship, I
remain strongly committed to a standards
Fred,
you talk about interoperability between vendors, this is good. Let
not forget interoperability with users, i.e. our own IETF document
interoperability with the external standard we leverage and the user
demand. Waiting for industrial products not to excite the public is
too long and
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
For what it is worth my takehome from the Montreal meeting was that there was
genuine desire for change but no recognition of consensus on a particular way
forward.
One of the reasons that there is no recognition of consensus on a way forward
is that we did not
On Tue Sep 19 22:31:40 2006, Dave Crocker wrote:
I would argue that Proposed Standard as the end-of-the-line
in our standardization process is just wrong. I certainly can see
an argument for merging Proposed and Draft - but there are lots
of indications that even the simplified one-step
Brian,
There was consensus to put forward the ISD proposal, which the IESG
kicked
back, with an explanation of its issues, which you can find in the
newtrk archive. That didn't lead to a revised ISD proposal.
So that it's clear, I am not now nor was I then a proponent of ISDs. I
think
I garbled:
To the IESG's credit you did provide at least
something of a menu of options, but it was
... not clear you would advance a draft even if we advanced one of those
options.
Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
My apologies in advance for posting in this thread.
There was, to recall history, no consensus in newtrk for any particular
choice among the various options for simplifying the 3 stage process.
So the IESG never saw or responded to any proposal in that area.
My understanding (as author of
Eliot Lear wrote:
I garbled:
To the IESG's credit you did provide at least
something of a menu of options, but it was
... not clear you would advance a draft even if we advanced one of those
options.
Well, there wasn't likely to be a blank check promise to advance
a draft, was there?
Brian,
But I think there is a message here - badly phrased perhaps - that
running code is needed for such proposals to be thoroughly considered.
Suppose there was a proposal that all RFCs should be sourced as XML
files. We have a lot of running code to measure that proposal against.
Douglas
At 11:17 20/09/2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
Well, I think there's a lot of confusion between the statement We,
as engineers trying to maintain our scientific integrity as a whole,
consider this specification a good thing and recommend it, and We,
as disinterested engineers trying to be
Jefsey == Jefsey Morfin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think the following is a good summary of our quandary.
Jefsey At 11:17 20/09/2006, Dave Cridland wrote:
Well, I think there's a lot of confusion between the statement We,
as engineers trying to maintain our scientific integrity
On 9/19/06, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thankfully, the complete failure known as HTTP 1.1 would never make it
to Proposed Standard under the unwritten process we have now. For
example, it doesn't contain a mandatory, universally interoperable
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle and align
theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
Brian
Dear Frank,
the main problem in a human debate is that the different protagonists
tend to see the world, the debate, and the vision of others through
their own vision. If they are reasonably clever what is something I
take for granted here, and sufficently informed (what RFC 3935
requires),
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle
and align theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
I'm sorry, Brian, but this
I interpreted the microphone and hand-raising in Montreal that people
were tired of interminable process discussions that consume lots of
resources and in the end accomplish nothing.
One way to ensure that there are no such discussions is to make all such
discussions fruitless and
Eliot Lear wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We could argue this interminably or you could simply grasp the nettle
and align theory with reality.
It was clear in Montreal that there is no community consensus to spend
effort on doing this, so we have closed down this avenue for now.
I'm
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I interpreted the microphone and hand-raising in Montreal that people
were tired of interminable process discussions that consume lots of
resources and in the end accomplish nothing.
Henning and Brian,
I think you are confusing accomplish nothing with produces a
) imperfect process, or we
would like to adopt (and/or modify) someone else's.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Eliot Lear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 4:13 AM
-- To: Brian E Carpenter
-- Cc: ietf@ietf.org
-- Subject: Re: Facts, please
just do an informational RFC) and the large dose of Not Invented Here.
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:34 AM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Facts, please, not handwaving [Re: Its about
mandate RE
Henning == Henning Schulzrinne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Henning For this particular case, I don't think there is a
Henning scientifically provable right answer, so a reasonable
Henning approach is to pick a number (1 or 2 or 3 steps) that
Henning most active participants
I would argue that Proposed Standard as the end-of-the-line
in our standardization process is just wrong. I certainly can see
an argument for merging Proposed and Draft - but there are lots
of indications that even the simplified one-step process of moving
from Draft to full Standard
Phill,
As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active participants that
produces on average less than 3 standards a year
and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
It is well understood that the Internet mainly runs on Proposed Standards,
so the appropriate
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Phill,
As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active
participants that produces on average less than 3 standards a year
and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
It is well understood that the Internet mainly runs on Proposed
At 09:09 18/09/2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Phill,
As a result the IETF is a standards body with 2000 active
participants that produces on average less than 3 standards a year
and typically takes ten years to produce even a specification.
It is well understood that the Internet mainly runs
On 9/18/06, Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have not done the work to review velocity from -00 to RFC, but perhaps
Bill Fenner has.
I haven't; I've been concentrating on the IESG part of the document lifecycle.
Bill
___
Ietf mailing list
Jefsey_Morfin wrote:
The Internet has dramatically increased this to the point we
have accepted it as a virtual and a global world, i.e. a
conceptual and geographical equivalent coverage to reality.
The IETF is therefore in the core of this
But not alone, googlebot, wikipedia, and some other
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
[..]
Campaigns can be a pain, but they do have positive attributes. People
who have to campaign for a position are forced to think about the
contribution they intend to make, they have to set out a program of
action, they have to communicate it to the
On 9/18/06, Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's see - HTTP/1.1 was published as Proposed Standard in
January 1997, and draft-ietf-http-v11-spec-00.txt was posted
in November 1995.
The first drafts of the spec were
Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thankfully, the complete failure known as HTTP 1.1 would never make it
to Proposed Standard under the unwritten process we have now. For
example, it doesn't contain a mandatory, universally interoperable
authentication feature.
That's right, it doesn't,
33 matches
Mail list logo
