[ietf-outcomes] Definitions and conflict process
Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 11 February 2010 17:30 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 653793A7445 for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:30:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Co9l3M+c7TRJ for <ietf-outcomes@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:30:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F4683A680E for <ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:30:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.43] (adsl-68-122-70-87.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.70.87]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1BHVUao016041 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:31:35 -0800
Message-ID: <4B743EED.9030003@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:31:25 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100111 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
References: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A0401F0D8DA@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com> <048101caa80f$db2ee5a0$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <E25EFA3754F74B2AB6D11BBA3685FD70@BertLaptop> <4B70F71B.7080804@bogus.com> <BLU137-DS5E874A567D6039C93F14793500@phx.gbl> <064301caa99f$fb5f6e30$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <4B718B7B.6000401@dcrocker.net> <BLU137-DS4FD3AA173C43E69670B9A93500@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU137-DS4FD3AA173C43E69670B9A93500@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/10380/Thu Feb 11 07:45:56 2010 on sbh17.songbird.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:31:36 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
Subject: [ietf-outcomes] Definitions and conflict process
X-BeenThere: ietf-outcomes@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF Outcomes Wiki discussion list <ietf-outcomes.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes>, <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-outcomes>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-outcomes@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-outcomes>, <mailto:ietf-outcomes-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:30:24 -0000
(opsarea mailing list dropped.) David and Bernard, et al, On 2/9/2010 12:28 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote: > Dave Crocker said: > > "This means that a protocol is a failure if it is widely used, but for > different purposes than it was intended." > > [BA] If a protocol has been implemented, deployed and used, I don't think > that can qualify as a failure under the RFC 5218 definition. From Section > 1.4: You quote Section 1.4 and I quoted Section 1.2. They appear to be conflicting definitions, and the conflict doesn't appear to be subtle. Both bits of text are clearly written and easily understood. So while it well might be good for us to have a single definition of 'success' that is universally applied, simply referring to the RFC does not seem to get us there. > Dave Crocker also said: > > "Deployed" is also a problem, since there is a long track record of > industry's having deployed something but never actually using it very much. > I submit all of OSI as a prime example. I'll repeat that I think we should have a trivial rule, and that I think it should simply be a measure of 'benefit'. If people are using something, it has benefit. If they have deployed it but are not using it, there is no benefit. We need to be careful that we do not define an array of subtle distinctions that wind up adding to our effort but don't make major impact on the utility of the assessment exercise. So, for example, the difference between deployment and use is not subtle, but just how much do we learn by adding the distinction to the core assessment effort? Adding pieces to an assessment effort increases the complexity and the potential for disagreement. Contrast this with: The community agrees that a protocol is not used or is not used very much. (A - or -- assessment.) After we agree on that, folk ask what happened and discover that it was deployed but difficult to use. That's worth knowing, but only /after agreeing that it wasn't used/. In other words, the distinction between Used and Deployed is interesting as a derivative measure in the case of non-use, and is not interesting in the case of use. That means it should not be part of the core assessment effort, which makes that effort simpler. On 2/9/2010 10:34 AM, David Harrington wrote: > One problem with a wiki is that it can represent the personal opinion > of the last person to edit it, rather than to represent the consensus > of the IETF. But it is posted on the official IETF web site, and can > easily be mistaken to represent an official statement of consensus. There are a few layers to dealing with this concern. I fully expect that we will, indeed, eventually find conflict about an entry to be a serious problem. When we do, we'll have to proceed thoughtfully. Stepping through the layers, here's my own, starting view: The wiki software used by the IETF does not provide the wiki equivalent of email list 'moderation', where an authority can mandate certain controls on the text. So the underlying mechanics of enforcing resolution of a conflict about an entry is going to have to rely on social conventions, rather than software mechanics. If that becomes insufficient, we'll have to figure out some way to deal with it. Although I did not write anything into the initial charter -- because I think there should be discussion and agreement before adding a statement about it -- I have assumed that the process for resolving conflicts about an entry should be debate and rough consensus on this mailing list. I'm tasked with facilitating and assessing. I'm a believer in overt steps to resolve debate, including on-list efforts to summarize and suggest compromises, and finally to make explicit, on-list statements about assessment of rough consensus. Sometimes that can be reduced to a one-step "default yes", such as the change I just installed onto the wiki homepage and charter: Bernard and I had a public exchange and quickly reached an agreement. I waited a day and no one else chimed in. Absent objections, I declared that I'd make the change, and then did. To the extent that anyone comes in afterward and cares about this, they can see the sequence. If they object and the group comes to consensus about wanting to reverse or modify the change, wiki's make this easy. If there is a disagreement about my handling of any wiki or mailing list issues, I'm assuming we can invoke the usual appeals process, through the IESG. (Authorization for establishing the wiki on the IETF site came from the IETF Chair, so I assume that's the reporting structure for on-going issues.) It is certain that there are issues about changing the wiki's format or contents that will run into a problem that requires new or different procedures. As these come up, we will figure them out, as long as the community stays engaged in the effort. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki Dave CROCKER
- Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki David Harrington
- Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki Dave CROCKER
- Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki David Harrington
- Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki Bernard Aboba
- Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki Dave CROCKER
- Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: [ietf-outcomes] [OPS-AREA] IETF Outcomes wiki Dave CROCKER
- [ietf-outcomes] Definitions and conflict process Dave CROCKER