Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> Wed, 03 July 2013 16:54 UTC
Return-Path: <eckert@cisco.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 AD2AB21F9A29 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 Tu135kpHLsDh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-1.cisco.com (mtv-iport-1.cisco.com [173.36.130.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9861521F994B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2048; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1372870477; x=1374080077; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=XT21NwgL1JAy3LSuB2gPGryltZoQpQi3SzTnSxIYhzE=; b=g+egu4cUwXYlWBfs44R0303/osD4juGTMSeTddHqdSyq9RbyovYgZcdN t8f4r36oPCdrsqFzoce0b/piCL0rHWskAbqJWUkSChHG4OGvROsZ76l/M URzO0Udn2eBPp6mhKL/eL+N2JFYamlohHAfKuyr/vGj5vKDVdV2KNIHEK o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ai4FAPtW1FGrRDoH/2dsb2JhbABagwnBMIEEFnSCIwEBAQQ6PxALGAklDwVJE4gOuw2PaweDBGkDiSOOJQGRRYFYgVkc
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,989,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="82117901"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2013 16:54:30 +0000
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r63GsTO2028880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:54:29 GMT
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r63GsSZ1007490; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:54:28 -0700
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id r63GsQMF007488; Wed, 3 Jul 2013 09:54:26 -0700
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 09:54:26 -0700
From: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
Subject: Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regarding draft-ietf-manet-nhdp-sec-threats
Message-ID: <20130703165426.GA6039@cisco.com>
References: <20130702222442.2467.13086.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F12408223F494ECC@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <m2mwq4o5pr.wl%randy@psg.com> <95D1F4E7-E98D-4188-A54F-2E705EED6FF9@piuha.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <95D1F4E7-E98D-4188-A54F-2E705EED6FF9@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Cc: 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: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 16:54:42 -0000
Jari, *: Disclaimer: see signature (i do not know the details of this specific case). To me the problem seems to be going back to the means the IETF has for providing recognition to participants contributing by review/feedback. As long as recognition for that contribution is primarily left to the disgression of the listed draft authors, it will negatively impact the amount of especially critical feedback/review the IETF will see. Unless a contributor has a specific business reason to reject or help to improve a drafts, its most likely not worth their time to fight / improve documents without better means of recognition than how its defined today. Especially if their job role lives off showing recognition for their contribution to their employer/sponsor. As much as i hate overboarding processes, an explicit review tool tracking feedback and approval/disapproval of documents may be able to help here. Especially given how there is already tooling to show some form of IETF score based on explicit authorship. You know who's tool i am talking about ;-) Not claiming i am persuaded that the problem is significant enough to invest into an explicit review tool, just saying its more than just difference of opinions or rough consensus as you seem to claim (if i undestood you correctly). Cheers Toerless On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 07:19:20AM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote: > > > i have never considered writng one. sour grapes make bad wine. > > Errors do happen, for everyone and for all organisations. We do not treat appeals as sour grapes at the IESG, IAB or other places that receive them. We consider them an opportunity to review whether something was missed. At the same time, we do not intend to give special treatment to an argument just because it is labeled as an appeal. Sometimes legitimate differences of opinion are just that, and consensus was rough. > > Jari > -- --- Toerless Eckert, eckert@cisco.com It's much easier to have an opinion if you do not understand the problem.
- RE: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… l.wood
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Bob Hinden
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Randy Bush
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Russ Housley
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Dave Crocker
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Jari Arkko
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… William McCall
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Pete Resnick
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Warren Kumari
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… John C Klensin
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Dave Crocker
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Sam Hartman
- Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-… SM
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Ted Lemon
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Pete Resnick
- Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Bary… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-… Eliot Lear
- Re: Appeal Response to [removed] regarding draft-… Michael StJohns
- Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… Warren Kumari
- RE: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… l.wood
- Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… Doug Barton
- Re: [IETF] Re: [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdu… Dave Cridland
- Re: [IETF] [IETF] Re: Appeal Response to Abdussal… Ted Lemon
- Re: Appeal Response to Abdussalam Baryun regardin… Jari Arkko