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

"Thomson, Martin" <> Tue, 19 October 2010 02:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B83C3A67FA for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.893
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.294, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PfJ7-W4L0St2 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A417E3A6A98 for <>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]:33917 "EHLO") by with ESMTP id S35751282Ab0JSCcR (ORCPT <rfc822;>); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:32:17 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.436.0; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:32:16 -0500
Received: from ([fe80::9d82:a492:85e3:a293]) by ([fe80::8a9:4724:f6bb:3cdf%10]) with mapi; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:31:58 +0800
From: "Thomson, Martin" <>
To: "" <>, "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:31:56 +0800
Thread-Topic: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?
Thread-Index: Actu6gZ3wRTQuVGqSj2TMTrnh0ZlmwASr4cw
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BCN: Meridius 1000 Version 3.4 on
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 02:30:51 -0000

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-----
From: [] 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:


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