Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 20 April 2014 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C81291A003D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 pz72309vBtZw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0506A1A002A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3KIKEmY013713 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:20:18 -0700
Message-ID: <53540F60.7080909@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:18:08 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
References: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com> <4756885.Eo3b3po9Vj@scott-latitude-e6320> <5353FEF7.2060708@bbiw.net> <2438778.l2fkdhtpfX@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <2438778.l2fkdhtpfX@scott-latitude-e6320>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BLcThrvSddiM5u5WIfdJLTlkSIg
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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, 20 Apr 2014 18:20:28 -0000

On 4/20/2014 10:15 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Right.  The alternate defense against a WG charter that allowed for anything
> more than wordsmithing was to insist that proponents of a working group go do
> the work of a working group to evaluate the protocol and figure out if it
> needed any changes before such a working group would be chartered.


Defense is an interest choice of words.  It tends to imply an obligation 
to start a working group even when there is no work known to be needed.

Working groups are expensive.  The costs they incur are justified only 
when there is known to be a need.

Requiring clear statements about the need is not 'defensive'; it is 
merely being professional and responsible.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net