Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process

Curtis Villamizar <cvillamizar@infinera.com> Tue, 09 August 2011 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <cvillamizar@infinera.com>
X-Original-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC9B821F8A67 for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.165
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.434, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Ts3qu59Dw8s for <81attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SV-CASHT-PROD3.infinera.com (sv-casht-prod3.infinera.com [8.4.225.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6071F21F87DA for <81attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com ([fe80::dc68:4e20:6002:a8f9]) by SV-CASHT-PROD3.infinera.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.001; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:02:28 -0700
From: Curtis Villamizar <cvillamizar@infinera.com>
To: Randall Gellens <rg+ietf@qualcomm.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, Dae Young KIM <dykim@cnu.ac.kr>
Thread-Topic: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process
Thread-Index: AQHMVrVkhkuHp7aeHUS7tC9izzK3J5UUvjAg
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:02:28 +0000
Message-ID: <B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB07612C55@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com>
References: <4E34C3A9.2020502@att.com> <A5B9F059BE69461F8008EBECD84A1E67@china.huawei.com> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A6402713C27@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> <3DA9637F-1C72-43CB-B040-49F2A6FF26D9@softarmor.com> <4E398F03.1000806@dcrocker.net> <CA6BA2FE-13E7-438F-B943-7659A37DB3C5@cisco.com> <744D8CA9-9C01-41A5-A22C-CDF2F4E904EF@fugue.com> <p06240611ca64d0f07a2b@loud.pensive.org> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1108072112110.14256@sjc-vpn7-506.cisco.com> <p06240601ca65afd19752@loud.pensive.org> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1108080830460.18801@sjc-vpn7-506.cisco.com> <CAFgODJfSOHdt-Lzz6bpnHSCSi5kLMu3Yjjh2xU5b35Dtwm5tRw@mail.gmail.com> <B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB076127BF@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com> <CAFgODJecoePK7RX=+4DpwZ93qKE1HvjBq7vPOEkToxy0LfnOXg@mail.gmail.com> <FF871B758C55949D49F19663@PST.JCK.COM> <p0624061aca6632f15733@loud.pensive.org> <CAFgODJcgVbEQt0V7wJ9VOjdUvU=hArCiuyn8dOM7TBqVcS=q=Q@mail.gmail.com> <0339E737-3061-45BF-9A4F-E787EF45D48D@checkpoint.com> <B819AC736B2D3745ADEA0C285E020CEB07612B8E@SV-EXDB-PROD1.infinera.com> <p06240601ca6715beff81@loud.pensive.org>
In-Reply-To: <p06240601ca6715beff81@loud.pensive.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.100.99.21]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "81attendees@ietf.org" <81attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process
X-BeenThere: 81attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF 81 Attendee List <81attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/81attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:81attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/81attendees>, <mailto:81attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:02:00 -0000

Yes.

PS -> DS -> FS was a good process.

Interoperable implementations and deployment experience are key.

The routing area had in the past insisted on a higher criteria than the IETF in general which served it well.

This process rigor has been diluted.

Curtis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randall Gellens [mailto:rg+ietf@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:53 AM
> To: Curtis Villamizar; Yoav Nir; Dae Young KIM
> Cc: 81attendees@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [81attendees] casual attendees & WG process
> 
> At 3:11 PM +0000 8/9/11, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> 
> >  We have lost touch with the "running code" part of "rough consensus
> > and running code" and we may not be doing well on the "rough
> > consensus" part either.  We are headed toward the design by
> > committee and voting methods used by other SDO along with including
> > every half thought out feature anyone imagined during the process
> > and no implementations.  This leads to protocols that don't work
> > with features that no one has ever implemented or where no one has
> > ever succeeded in getting to interoperate among vendors.
> 
> And of course, weeding this out was part of the three-stage maturity
> process which we've pretty much abandoned: When it seems pretty
> stable and has reached consensus and *looks* like a good idea,
> publish as Proposed Standard.  After a while, see who has actually
> implemented it and which parts were implemented and interoperate.
> Delete everything else, publish what's left as Draft Standard.  After
> a while, repeat but with a higher test (widespread implementation and
> deployment) and publish as Standard.
> 
> --
> Randall Gellens
> Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
> -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
> Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.
>     --Groucho Marx