Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 26 January 2015 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7181A8836 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 06:12:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Utx4OGa-QEl0 for <ianaplan@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 06:12:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 306141A8835 for <ianaplan@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 06:12:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AE3BEF8; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:12:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jqj65neX5a20; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:12:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57311BEA0; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:12:30 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <54C64B4F.2040907@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:12:31 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>, ianaplan@ietf.org
References: <F8FC64C8-6FC7-4672-B18B-46DF993A653A@cooperw.in> <54C091D2.9050608@gmail.com> <1F30A463-76A9-4854-952A-35C54E42D2C6@istaff.org> <CAOW+2dvd1QRC6xbDTZ6ah23HfX=K=SeXDc1kXr2NREAcy37SvQ@mail.gmail.com> <54C13630.3050601@meetinghouse.net> <54C3D305.6030705@acm.org> <20150125201843.GB76865@mx1.yitter.info> <c258dfbdcb3b45f3a5d239fc6c3f0246@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <20150126024813.GB77105@mx1.yitter.info> <54C5ABCB.20000@meetinghouse.net> <20150126030945.GD77105@mx1.yitter.info> <54C5B476.6030900@meetinghouse.net> <54C5C4A1.7070100@gmail.com> <54C6460C.6080003@meetinghouse.net>
In-Reply-To: <54C6460C.6080003@meetinghouse.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ianaplan/sbUOiIcgQOCNoqPK6x-EkJ8RhM4>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Process concern regarding the IETF proposal development process
X-BeenThere: ianaplan@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <ianaplan.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/>
List-Post: <mailto:ianaplan@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ianaplan>, <mailto:ianaplan-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:12:35 -0000

On 26/01/15 13:50, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> 
> "Answerable to the IETF" comes back to "who is the IETF" and "who
> represents the IETF."  Obviously a working group with explicitly limited
> scope does not represent the IETF-as-a-whole.

Either that is a total misunderstanding of how the IETF
operates or else I have no clue what you mean.

I also think that those who are claiming any process concern is
at all real appear to share similar such misunderstandings.

The WG was chartered. Chartering involves the IESG approving
the charter after it has gone to the entire community for
comment. And in many cases (incl. this) after a BoF and
mailing list discussion.

Anyone who cares to can participate in the working group. (But
they do not get the outcome that they wish for sometimes, as
we see here.)

The WG's output is subject to an IETF last call when anyone
from the community can again raise new issues or comment, and
after that resulting text is again subject to IESG approval.

That's all entirely normal and does mean that the results
of this work do represent the rough consensus of the IETF as
a whole.

Or more succinctly - I see no process concerns here at all.
I do see some folks who were in the rough posting yet again
on topics that were settled after lots and lots of email,
most of which was IMO unnecessary, the topics in question
having been fully dealt with numerous times. I see the same
pattern here.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I'm utterly mystified by talk about project proposal
preparation. That's as relevant as walking a dog - both
are something lots of us do but both are irrelevant here:-)