[Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Mon, 18 October 2010 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jmpolk@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: earlywarning@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D49583A6B90 for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.538
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5BqG2GJ0xU8i for <earlywarning@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4753A6A70 for <earlywarning@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:26:34 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFALsgvEyrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACTMI19caNvnEOFSQSEVA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,345,1283731200"; d="scan'208";a="202560984"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Oct 2010 17:28:03 +0000
Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8715.cisco.com []) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o9IHS2tI002635; Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:28:03 GMT
Message-Id: <201010181728.o9IHS2tI002635@sj-core-5.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 12:28:01 -0500
To: earlywarning@ietf.org
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: [Atoca] ATOCA chairs - IETF process being violated?
X-BeenThere: earlywarning@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/earlywarning>
List-Post: <mailto:earlywarning@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/earlywarning>, <mailto:earlywarning-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:26:35 -0000

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.