Re: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?

"James M. Polk" <> Tue, 19 October 2010 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 199763A68F5 for <>; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.445
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.154, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09iQG-WRonV3 for <>; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C21BB3A68C2 for <>; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:41:18 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAAp1vUyrRN+J/2dsb2JhbAChaXGmYpxZhUoEhFU
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,351,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="606464107"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 19 Oct 2010 17:42:50 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9JHgn8h009215; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:42:49 GMT
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:42:47 -0500
To: "Thomson, Martin" <>, "" <>, "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <>
From: "James M. Polk" <>
In-Reply-To: <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03F31EA7D0@SISPE7MB1.comms>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:41:20 -0000

WG chairs are allowed to accept IDs past the deadline, if they 
communicate that to the Secretariat exactly (by filename) which late 
submission to post.

This would allow you to have the authors of each ID (reqs and cap) 
resubmit the IDs as individual versions.

just an FYI


At 09:31 PM 10/18/2010, Thomson, Martin wrote:
>Approving these drafts was a little premature.  While we have 
>milestones for work items in our charter, we hadn't formally had the 
>discussion about accepting these as working group items.
>For now, let us pretend that these -ietf- versions of the drafts 
>don't exist.  To help us, can we request that the authors of these 
>drafts submit revisions of the individual drafts?
>We should have a discussion about the status of these items at our 
>meeting.  If it seems like we do want to adopt these drafts, we'll 
>do a formal 2 week call on the list straight after the meeting.  If 
>not, we'll have to see what we can do to kill off the -ietf- drafts.
>Martin (and Scott), ATOCA Chairs
>-----Original Message-----
>[] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2010 4:28 AM
>Subject: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?
>ATOCA chairs
>I'm personally glad this WG formed.
>That said, one WG item was submitted today and I can't seem to find
>in the list archives any call for the WG to approve of any WG level documents.
>The WG was announced in this message (from Aug 17th)
>Martin, as one of two WG chairs, you welcomed all of us to the WG Sept 1st
>Martin, you're initial non-welcome message (Sept 14th) talked about
>Beijing meeting slots
>and said this:
>We're expecting to spend some time on the following drafts:
>    draft-rosen-atoca-cap
>    draft-rosen-atoca-server-discovery
>    draft-schulzrinne-atoca-requirements
>that meeting agenda thread continued until the first WG item was
>submitted (Sept 24th) without the WG ever having a say in whether or
>not this ID was good or bad to adopt
>The very next message to this list (Oct 1st) had a rough agenda
>that didn't even mention draft-ietf-atoca-cap-00.txt
>Now on Oct 18th, draft-ietf-atoca-cap-00.txt is submitted - again
>without the proper (or even a mention of) list discussion about
>whether this ID is a good thing for the WG to adopt or not.
>Common guys - we can't start the WG by willfully violating IETF WG
>process like this! One of the two of you (chairs) is new, so this
>isn't really a surprise, but one of you authored one of the core IETF
>process documents (RFC 2418), so there's less tolerance here.
>This cannot be tolerated and each of these documents need to be
>rescinded (i.e., taken out of the ID repository) until the WG
>approves them. I mean, there hasn't even been a face-to-face meeting
>to have voices say yes or no (hums one way or the other or ever
>thumbs pointed up or down). There's been nothing within this WG to
>justify these two IDs being WG items yet.
>There's still time (6.5 hours) to have each resubmitted as individual
>IDs and us discuss them properly in Beijing, and maybe even indicate
>there that these should be put to the ATOCA list for WG
>consideration. Before this happens, these two IDs aren't properly WG items.
>earlywarning mailing list
>earlywarning mailing list