Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Sun, 12 August 2012 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFAFD21F8503 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XpM1UcVDRZf4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8396621F8505 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:02:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lahm15 with SMTP id m15so1680922lah.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=G+oOy2v9HYa38fyzl188uej25UJ1nWlem8ADeUy7cwY=; b=xShnHz8MijJs9jQ5yUVKs8lDxo7bdaT6qC/qaFCndAXNBNM34TwYuaeRfrrps4dVKI h5SMaeMPsESTrlECZpyIu46kXh4bOB9b9MqWosha8SjXoZUbTu2oIrEsC+y/UxBcTeDv jIFkm+AKvgcC5F7ePH595tqMPMd3rKOYUe4FO/CE2Gh9PMiv/BoiV28Ibx80EWT6kHkU MggW/zB3hkYiH42jUUWjorbvObzYbqDJfJsPPA2pRaqTnGfmU2+VHu3ukrW17CNwUTKn wiU7secOwfrGnzb3xe1NE/xVrdq9HKAZ8k+k2iXJ2fWC8RihPBP7/eppQhLXmaOInEGz FLLA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.112.234 with SMTP id it10mr8931890lab.36.1344783753248; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.113.196 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 08:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <50267826.70307@bbiw.net>
References: <u2b8y2x43qn1esn7ege163mo.1344689258582@email.android.com> <50266F05.5050601@dcrocker.net> <1C6BB491-8B0B-4432-B633-6D8AA3B6477E@tzi.org> <50267826.70307@bbiw.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:02:33 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: wbLlVl7qMVwAt17ZYjsSvTZSp00
Message-ID: <CAC4RtVARm1fXvHR4dv9Jh0HttW+ORhRx36kwF54RRjc4aOh1AQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [IAB] Last Call: Modern Global Standards Paradigm
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:02:35 -0000

> My point was that we have a process for assessing IETF support and it's not
> being used.  Something quite different is being used.

I'm not so sure.

It's true that this was not put into an Internet Draft.  Apart from
that, we seem to be doing the right thing:
- The IAB Chair announced the text and the intent to sign it on 1 Aug.
 He asked for comments.
- The IETF Chair announced updated text on 4 Aug, based on comments received.
- The IETF Chair made a last call on 10 Aug, running through 24 Aug,
noting that three organizations are approving this text (and that one
has already).  He asked for objections.
- A discussion (this) ensued, which has resulted in a great deal of
support for the signing, no objections to the document, and two
objections on process grounds.

I presume that the IETF Chair will evaluate rough consensus on or
after 24 Aug.  As I see it now, consensus appears to be strongly in
favour of their signing it, with a valid process objection that has to
be addressed.

By way of addressing that, this IETF participant thinks that our
consensus process has essentially been followed.  Text was publicly
posted, comments were incorporated, a last call was issued, and
responses are being considered.  In the end, we seem likely to have
IETF consensus that the IAB Chair and the IETF Chair sign the
document.

The parts that are not entirely as usual are (1) that the text was
publicly posted, but not in an Internet Draft, and (2) that the
community's ability to tweak the text has been limited.  That said,
both of those aspects are part of the public last call, and they have
gotten very limited objection.

Can you tell us where the above process fails in representing the
rough consensus of the IETF community, with respect to how we normally
express such consensus?  Can you tell us how what we're doing here is
"quite different" to our usual process (that is, "quite" different, as
opposed to very slightly different, with the difference having been
explained and due to the requirements of external interactions)?

Barry