Dave:
This observation was based on many hallway discussions with many people
over many years. You are correct to observe that there are many factors
at play, and many of them were discussed at the mic in plenary. The
draft changes process in many different places. I've attempted to
balance man
Russ,
In reading the latest version of your proposal, I finally realized that a
motivating premise:
o Since many documents are published as Proposed Standard and never
advances to a higher maturity level, the initial publication
receives much more scrutiny that is call for by
I strongly disagree with this characterization. In my view, too many
things got bundled together, and the thing that was unacceptable too the
whole bundle down.
Russ
On 6/24/2010 2:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> Last time the reforms were blocked without the IETF at large even
> knowing wh
Phillip:
Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was
Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that
included the whole IESG.
I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that
there is another side to the story. We need to learn from
I've mentioned this to Russ privately, but it's worth saying it out loud ...
Phillip:
Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was
Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that
included the whole IESG.
I made my reply to your posting because I want
> The ISD proposal
> required the IESG spend a lot of time that the individuals simply did
> not have.
so the IESG insisted - that was not the opinion of the newtrk chair
(who thought that ISDs would likely reduce the load on ADs
> Further, this came at a very, very bad time
and that, apparently
It seems to me that we hit a vicious circle in which the lack of standards
progressing beyond proposed has meant that proposed standard has been
considered sufficiently advanced for adoption leading to more people
worrying about rough edges in proposed standards and demanding more complete
document
My point is that I am unable to have any characterization whatsoever since
nobody has ever told me the reason that the changes did not go ahead.
And since I have asked for reasons in a plenary and never got any statement
that was not phrased in the passive voice, I don't think it is unfair to
desc
Yes, I agree that the IETF has become a lot more open than the
self-perpetuating cabal that ran it during the mid 90s.
We no have de-facto term limits for ADs and it is no longer considered
acceptable for an AD to chair a working group (excepting process related
groups chaired by the IETF chair).
On 2010-06-26 02:49, Russ Housley wrote:
> Phillip:
>
> Obviously, I was not General AD when this happened. However, I was
> Security AD at the time, so I was involved in the discussions that
> included the whole IESG.
>
> I made my reply to your posting because I want people to realize that
> t
One approach that may help avoid that blockage is to use a Quaker poll.
[Yes, Yes, consensus, blah, blah]
At the moment the mode of discourse is that everyone proposes their
preferred solution. So the clear consensus that the three step process is
not being applied is lost because everyone is en
11 matches
Mail list logo
