Re: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?
"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <email@example.com> Mon, 18 October 2010 23:41 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B7D43A6EAF for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([18.104.22.168]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NTx-JJ-dgDLv for <email@example.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [22.214.171.124]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC6E53A6BF6 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [126.96.36.199]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id o9INgsp3006127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:42:55 +0200
Received: from FRMRSSXCHMBSC3.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([188.8.131.52]) by FRMRSSXCHHUB03.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com ([184.108.40.206]) with mapi; Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:42:54 +0200
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <email@example.com>
To: "James M. Polk" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:42:53 +0200
Thread-Topic: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 220.127.116.11
Subject: Re: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?
List-Id: "Discussion list for the IETF Authority-to-Citizen Alert \(atoca\) working group." <earlywarning.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:41:30 -0000
I also don't remember being asked if the WG wanted to adopt any WG documents. I suggest you withdraw this one and submit an appropriate consensus call. Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: email@example.com > [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of James M. Polk > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 6:28 PM > To: email@example.com > 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) > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg0 > 0358.html > > Martin, as one of two WG chairs, you welcomed all of us to > the WG Sept 1st > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg0 > 0359.html > > Martin, you're initial non-welcome message (Sept 14th) talked > about Beijing meeting slots > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg0 > 0360.html > 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 > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg0 > 0377.html > > The very next message to this list (Oct 1st) had a rough > agenda > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning/current/msg0 > 0378.html > 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. > > James > > _______________________________________________ > earlywarning mailing list > firstname.lastname@example.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning >
- [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violate… James M. Polk
- Re: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being vio… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being vio… Scott O. Bradner
- Re: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being vio… Thomson, Martin
- Re: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being vio… James M. Polk