Sam,
For whatever it is worth, I could not agree more with your
formulation. Although you have stated it better than I have, I
think our conclusions are much the same: trying to formalize all
of this and write into formal text just gets us tied into more
knots and risks edge cases and abuses that
Rather than losing these reasonable thoughts, I stuck them in the
transition team Wiki under "IAOC Instructions". They will be remembered.
Thanks, Sam!
--On 27. januar 2005 22:44 -0500 Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we are very close here. I can live with Margaret's text with
Les
Sam,
For myself, I agree these things are true. I would like to
believe they are obvious, though I'm not certain of that. For
example, these things are equally true of the IAB and IESG, but it's
not clear to me that everyone understands they can drop a
note to either of those groups.
I don't (per
Margaret,
I have two problems with your text:
- It does not handle the issue Mike st. Johns raised - about whether
reviewing bodies would have privilleged access to normally-confidential
information related to the decision being challenged.
- I don't know what it means for the IESG, IAB or ISOC
I think we are very close here. I can live with Margaret's text with
Leslie's proposed changes. It's actually very close to something I
would be happy with.
I've been rethinking my position since yesterday. I realized that
most of what I want does not require formalism or requires very little
f
I am happy with both as well.
thanks
a.
On 27 jan 2005, at 20.30, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Leslie,
I like this formulation.
A couple of suggested tweaks, inline:
...and I like your tweaks :-).
They make the text much clearer. Thanks.
Margaret
___
Iet
Hi Leslie,
I like this formulation.
A couple of suggested tweaks, inline:
...and I like your tweaks :-).
They make the text much clearer. Thanks.
Margaret
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I like this formulation.
A couple of suggested tweaks, inline:
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Remove the current sections 3.5 and 3.6 and replace them with a new
section 3.5:
3.5 Review and Appeal of IAD and IAOC Decision
The IAOC is directly accountable to the IETF community for the
performanc
Hi Eric,
The problem is that "best interests of the IETF " is a completely
amorophous standard (In my view, chocolate helps people think
better so we need chocolate chip cookies in order to produce
better standards), so I don't seee how this rules out any appeals
at all.
This is a good point, and I
Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 5:40 PM -0800 1/26/05, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>With that in mind, I would like to suggest the following principles:
>>
>>1. The IETF community should have input on the internal rules
>>set by the IASA and the IASA should be required to respond
I am actually not strongly in favor of principle (6) myself. I
think that the IAB, IESG and ISOC BoT could be trusted to decide
whether overturning a particular (non-binding) decision is
appropriate in a particular situation. But, others seemed to feel
strongly that allowing anyone else to ov
Hi Eric,
At 5:40 PM -0800 1/26/05, Eric Rescorla wrote:
With that in mind, I would like to suggest the following principles:
1. The IETF community should have input on the internal rules
set by the IASA and the IASA should be required to respond
to comments by the community on said rules.
2.
> "Eric" == Eric Rescorla writes:
Eric> bad decisions we have a mechanism for unseating them.
Eric> 3. Decisions of the IAOC should be appealable (following the
Eric> usual 2026 appeal chain) on the sole grounds that the IASA's
Eric> processes were not followed. Those decisio
> "Leslie" == Leslie Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Leslie> Sam,
Leslie> Let me first take another stab at recap'ing the discussion
Leslie> that lead to my proposal for 3.5 and 3.6, and clarifying
Leslie> what I intend as a distinction between them.
Leslie> As I under
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Eric" == Eric Rescorla writes:
>
> Eric> bad decisions we have a mechanism for unseating them.
>
> Eric> 3. Decisions of the IAOC should be appealable (following the
> Eric> usual 2026 appeal chain) on the sole grounds that the IASA's
>
This set of principles works for me.
a.
On 26 jan 2005, at 20.40, Eric Rescorla wrote:
With that in mind, I would like to suggest the following principles:
1. The IETF community should have input on the internal rules
set by the IASA and the IASA should be required to respond
to comments by t
Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think I can support your proposed text. I still don't
> understand what your proposed section 3.5 does and don't think I could
> go along with the plausable readings I'm coming up with for that text.
>
> I don't think your text does a good job of
Sam,
Let me first take another stab at recap'ing the discussion that
lead to my proposal for 3.5 and 3.6, and clarifying what I
intend as a distinction between them.
As I understood them, John Klensin, Mike St.Johns, and others
were concerned about creating an IASA that could not or
operate without
I don't think I can support your proposed text. I still don't
understand what your proposed section 3.5 does and don't think I could
go along with the plausable readings I'm coming up with for that text.
I don't think your text does a good job of meeting the principles
Margaret tried to outline;
Avri,
I hear what you are saying. I retained the proposed text
for being obliged to respond only when direct by IAB/IESG
because people seemed to want it for rate limiting (i.e.,
preventing DoS). So, we can't just throw it out. We can
change it (entirely), but the empty set option does
not seem
January 26, 2005 03:16
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Mud. Clear as. Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
>
>
>
> With apologies for having posted & disappeared (ISP & other
> unexpected connectivity challenges), I'd like to try another
> cut at what I was getting a
L PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 14:03
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Mud. Clear as. Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
>
>
> Hi Harald,
>
> On 26 jan 2005, at 02.23, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
Hi Harald,
On 26 jan 2005, at 02.23, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Avri,
--On tirsdag, januar 25, 2005 23:44:09 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF
community a direct voice in the review and appeal mechanisms for the
IAOC.
I
Avri,
--On tirsdag, januar 25, 2005 23:44:09 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF
community a direct voice in the review and appeal mechanisms for the IAOC.
I do not understand what you mean by "direct voice". Could you explain?
Hi Leslie,
This formulation is still of the form that does not give the IETF
community a direct voice in the review and appeal mechanisms for the
IAOC.
I, personally see not reason why the IAOC is not directly addressable
by the community and does not have a direct obligation to the IETF
commu
With apologies for having posted & disappeared (ISP & other
unexpected connectivity challenges), I'd like to try another
cut at what I was getting at, based on the discussion since.
On Friday, I tried a minimal edit on words that had flown
around the list and seemed to have some consensus. Here's
m
I agree with Margaret's general principles with a few comments.
(4) is desirable to me but not critical.
I am ambivalent on (6); I don't think it is particularly problematic
but do not think it is required. I understand others disagree with me
strongly on this point.
The rest of the principles
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> However, failure to take adequate comments before making a
>> decision seems like a reasonable justification from my
>> standpoint for reviewing that decision. Depending on the
>> consequences of doing so it may even be
On 25 jan 2005, at 08.33, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
At 7:54 AM -0500 1/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in (2) I think that the review request need to be addressed to the
chair of the respective body. I think the language of 2026 can be
adapted as to contents.
Yes, I agree. That is what I includ
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Brian,
At 11:48 AM +0100 1/25/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Exactly. And we need to be sure that the "appeals" text allows for
review of procedures, including the kind of "case study" you suggest,
without allowing the appeal procedure to be used for commercial
food-fight
At 7:54 AM -0500 1/25/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in (2) I think that the review request need to be addressed to the
chair of the respective body. I think the language of 2026 can be
adapted as to contents.
Yes, I agree. That is what I included in my proposed wording (lo
these many moons ago)
hi,
I generally agree with these principles with some comments:
in (2) I think that the review request need to be addressed to the
chair of the respective body. I think the language of 2026 can be
adapted as to contents.
in (5), I think the appeals should have the full chain of appeals. I
kno
Hi Brian,
At 11:48 AM +0100 1/25/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Exactly. And we need to be sure that the "appeals" text allows for
review of procedures, including the kind of "case study" you suggest,
without allowing the appeal procedure to be used for commercial
food-fights. It's tricky to get that
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards
Brian> isn't, IMHO, which is all I intended my words to exclude.
Attempting to undo a specific award once things are signed (or
delaying signing) is ge
But that isn't what I (and probably Mike, Spencer, and others)
are concerned about. We are concerned about the "decision gets
made and then someone tries to second-guess it" scenarios, on
which we want to place extreme limits.
This is exactly what Spencer is concerned about... this, and the "bozo
--On Monday, 24 January, 2005 10:18 -0500 Sam Hartman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with you that pre-decision comments are preferable and
> that processes and procedures should allow these comments.
>
> I also agree that the example I proposed cannot happen under
> current procedures be
I agree with you that pre-decision comments are preferable and that
processes and procedures should allow these comments.
I also agree that the example I proposed cannot happen under current
procedures because there is not a comment window for meeting
locations. I do not intend to speak to whethe
Sam,
Let's take another look at your example, from my point of view
(I can't speak for Mike).
--On Sunday, 23 January, 2005 22:39 -0500 Sam Hartman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd like to present one other example that motivates why I
> think having the review process is important. Say that
I suppose that I am one of those at the other end of the scale, looking
for a solution that allows full and direct IETF community
review/appeal.
On 23 jan 2005, at 21.35, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
I agree with the idea that there are extremes when we talk about our
ideas on "review", but please do
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> --On Sunday, 23 January, 2005 14:20 -0500 Michael StJohns
John> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > Who gets to kick this process into starting (e.g. who gets >
>>> to file a complaint)?
>>>
>>> Anyone, but onl
I agree with the idea that there are extremes when we talk about our
ideas on "review", but please don't assume that JohnK and Michael are
the only people at that end of the pool...
I had assumed that the IETF would let IASA run things with periodic
general feedback and rare specific feedback (
--On Sunday, 23 January, 2005 14:20 -0500 Michael StJohns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Responding in the areas where you are unclear about what I'm
suggesting (or see it differently)
>> Everything, although I'd expect some of the things you list to
>> get very brief consideration. And, to gi
> "John" == John C Klensin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> Where I, and some others, have tried to go in the interest
John> of finding a position that everyone can live with is well
John> short of what I (and I think you) would like. I suspect we
John> may still end up prett
> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> I agree that postmortems can be useful but I'm not sure
Scott> that doing such on a decision to hire Bill instead of Fred
Scott> is one of those cases where it woudl be useful, feasiable
Scott> (due to confidential i
ful
Scott
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jan 23 15:17:14 2005
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Bradner)
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From:
> "Leslie" == Leslie Daigle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Leslie> 3.5 Business Decisions
Leslie> Decisions made by the IAD in the course of carrying out
Leslie> IASA business activities are subject to review by the
Leslie> IAOC.
Leslie> The decisions of the IAOC must be pub
> "Scott" == Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Scott> ps - I'm not sure that its all that useful to be able to
Scott> appeal/review awards if they can not be overturned -
Scott> apealing or reviewing the process that was followed is fine
Scott> but appealling the actual
At 11:50 AM 1/23/2005, John C Klensin wrote:
I deleted all the stuff I agreed with - e.g. most of it. I'm afraid I
agree with you that there a vast chasm of differences on this topic. I
also agree with you that the body should be independent and that others
disagree. *sigh* In any event I'm
--On Saturday, 22 January, 2005 23:52 -0500 Michael StJohns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John/Leslie et al - this is a good improvement, and Leslie's
> 3.5 now reads in a way I can support. 3.6 still has some
> sticking points.
>
> After the last round of comments I went away and thought and
> c
Michael,
I see you come - in still a too detailed manner - the real life way I
suggested. That IAOC and IAD are under the obligation to ask the IETF
approval for their decisions. But that they may decide there is a consensus
(there might be a formula coined to that end, they should use when sign
John/Leslie et al - this is a good improvement, and Leslie's 3.5 now reads
in a way I can support. 3.6 still has some sticking points.
After the last round of comments I went away and thought and came up with
the following:
There are three separate things that I think were meant by the origina
Hi,
The IAD is required to respond to requests for a review from the
IAOC, and the IAOC is required to respond to requests for a review
of a decision from the IAB or from the IESG.
If members of the community feel that they are unjustly denied a
response to a request for review, they may ask the IA
Leslie,
I think this is a huge improvement, and a large step in the
right direction. Two observations:
(i) In the revised 3.5, it would be good to get a slightly
better handle/ definition on what is, or is not, a "business
decision". Since the IAD and IAOC are ultimately all about
business deci
Following up the point I made in response to Mike St.Johns
a couple days ago, I went back through the document to see if/how
it distinguishes between being adequately responsive and
accountable to the community, from having appropriate
chains of accountability for contractual purposes (and
no micro
> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards
Brian> isn't, IMHO, which is all I intended my words to exclude.
Attempting to undo a specific award once things are signed (or
delaying signing) is generally unac
ps - I'm not sure that its all that useful to be able to appeal/review
awards if they can not be overturned - apealing or reviewing
the process that was followed is fine but appealling the actual
award seems broken
this may seem like a wording nit but I think it would properly set
expectations
S
Margaret sez:
> None of the versions of the text that we are looking at (the current
> BCP, Harald's, mine, Scott Brim's...) indicate that a request for
> review of an IAD or IAOC decision could result in: (1) reversing a
> ...
if all of the proposed text actually said (as the -04 text does)
Several people have used the term "DoS attack" in relation to a
review/appeals process as if that were a well-defined and
well-understood phenomenon, and I don't understand what it means.
Here is one example that doesn't make sense to me:
At 8:39 AM -0500 1/21/05, Scott Bradner wrote:
Brian clar
Brian clarifies:
> Reviewing procedures is fine. Reviewing specific awards isn't, IMHO,
> which is all I intended my words to exclude.
I agree with Brian - allowing the review of specific awards could
easily cause the DoS attack that I've been warning against
Scott
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On fredag, januar 21, 2005 11:49:04 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, but the stuff about decision review in Harald's text is pretty
clear that its the "person" or "body" that's subject to review.
Mike, yes, this text is problematic. But it
--On fredag, januar 21, 2005 11:49:04 +0100 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, but the stuff about decision review in Harald's text is pretty
clear that its the "person" or "body" that's subject to review.
Mike, yes, this text is problematic. But it isn't in the draft.
I don't fin
Michael StJohns wrote:
> 3.5 Decision review
>
> In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
> IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
>
> The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
> the decision. It is up to that body to de
Sam Hartman wrote:
"Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> I think that is not really a concern. If someone has a
Brian> grievance that is serious enough for them to hire a lawyer
Brian> to make a complaint, no words in an RFC will stop them. But
Brian> the
> "Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> I think that is not really a concern. If someone has a
Brian> grievance that is serious enough for them to hire a lawyer
Brian> to make a complaint, no words in an RFC will stop them. But
Brian> the right words i
--On torsdag, januar 20, 2005 20:13:21 +0200 John Loughney
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Steve's email caused me to think, but first let me say that this should
not be in the BCP. Is it a correct assumption to think that the IASA
will give an update at every IETF plenary, along the lines of IANA a
bject: Re: Rough consensus? #425 3.5
From: "Steve Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 01/19/2005 6:03 pm
I have not been paying close attention to the debate over this section
of the BCP before, so I may be covering a point that's been made before.
I think there wil
At 06:25 AM 1/20/2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On torsdag, januar 20, 2005
00:00:36 -0500 Michael StJohns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
If you (general plural) really
feel this section needs to stand I think
you need to address at least two issues and narrow them
substantially:
who has sta
Hi,
In general I am happy with this formulation. Some comments below.
On 19 jan 2005, at 09.38, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
--
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone believes that a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC
either need an extra phras
> 3.5 Decision review
>
> In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
> IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
>
> The request for review is addressed to the person or body that made
> the decision. It is up to that body to decide to make a response,
> and
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hmm. I think this bothers me a lot unless
a) unsuccessful bidders and their agents
and
b) unsuccessful job candidates
are explicitly excluded. Otherwise, every time
the IASA awards a contract or hires somebody, they are
exposed to public attack by the unsuccessful.
In gen
--On torsdag, januar 20, 2005 00:00:36 -0500 Michael StJohns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you (general plural) really feel this section needs to stand I think
you need to address at least two issues and narrow them substantially:
who has standing to ask for a formal review? and on what specific
Michael StJohns wrote:
At a minimum, I'd explicitly prohibit review of the IADs actions
> by any body except the IAOC - direct the review to the IAOC only.
I think this is correct, managerially. That way the IAD knows who
his or her boss is, and that is important. But there is nothing
in draft-iet
At 00:21 20/01/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Interesting...
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with
decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement
to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining
those requiremen
At 06:21 PM 1/19/2005, Leslie Daigle wrote:
Interesting...
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with
decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement
to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining
those requireme
Interesting...
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are dealing with
decisions about implementing requirements, I agree.
To the extent that the IAD and IAOC are applying judgement
to interpret the "best needs of the IETF" (i.e., determining
those requirements), I disagree. I think it's a little
hea
Hi Harald et al -
I apologize for chiming in on this so late, but I had hopes it would get
worked out without me pushing over apple carts.
I can't support this and I recommend deleting this section in its entirety.
My cut on this:
The decisions of the IAD should be subject to review (and in some
Hmm. I think this bothers me a lot unless
a) unsuccessful bidders and their agents
and
b) unsuccessful job candidates
are explicitly excluded. Otherwise, every time
the IASA awards a contract or hires somebody, they are
exposed to public attack by the unsuccessful.
In general, people do not choose
I prefer Margaret's wording but could live with Harld's wording.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
I have not been paying close attention to the debate over this section
of the BCP before, so I may be covering a point that's been made before.
I think there will necessarily be a mixture of formal and informal
processes at work once the IASA is in operation. The IAOC is intended
to be at once
Hmm. I think this bothers me a lot unless
a) unsuccessful bidders and their agents
and
b) unsuccessful job candidates
are explicitly excluded. Otherwise, every time
the IASA awards a contract or hires somebody, they are
exposed to public attack by the unsuccessful.
Brian
Margaret Wasserman wrote
Sorry, I somehow omitted a line in my proposed wording:
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone believes that a decision of the IAD or the IAOC
violates published policy or goes against the best interests of the iETF
he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision by sending e-mail
to t
Okay, Harald indicated to me privately that I should be more specific
about my objections to the current wording and offer some
alternative, so here goes...
I do not object to the use of the term "review" instead of "appeal".
However, I do object to the current wording proposed by Harald for two
Harald explains
> > Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
> > ---
> >
> > why not make public all requests (i.e. remove "Answered" from the
> > last line)
>
> because:
> 1) some requests are an embarassment to the
On 1/19/2005 05:47, Harald Tveit Alvestrand allegedly wrote:
Trying to close this item, which is not resolved in the -04 draft:
I believe that the list discussion has converged on very rough
consensus (Sam and Avri being the people who worry that we're building
a DoS attack defense that we don't
--On onsdag, januar 19, 2005 07:21:40 -0500 Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Answered requests for review and their responses are made public.
---
why not make public all requests (i.e. remove "Answered" from the
last line)
because:
1
Harald writes:
> I suggested on Jan 13, replacing the last 3 paragraphs of section 3.4:
> --
> 3.5 Decision review
>
> In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
> IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
Trying to close this item, which is not resolved in the -04 draft:
I believe that the list discussion has converged on very rough consensus
(Sam and Avri being the people who worry that we're building a DoS
attack defense that we don't need, but Brian, Scott and Joh
Margaret notes
It seems strange, IMO, to be so worried about DoS attacks through the
appeal process we've been using this process for several years for
IESG and WG decisions and haven't experienced that sort of problem...
the current appeals process does not apply to commercial decisions
su
Harald suggests:
--
3.5 Decision review
In the case where someone questions a decision of the IAD or the
IAOC, he or she may ask for a formal review of the decision.
The request for review is addressed to the person or body that mad
Is this intended to replace the section on appeals? In other words,
will we have this review mechanism _instead_ of the ability to
actually appeal a decision of the IAOC?
If so, I'm not comfortable with that. I understand that there needs
to be some limit on the action that is taken in the ev
90 matches
Mail list logo
