Clarity, evolving documents, living documents, the RSE, IETF Management Styles, and traffic volume on this list.

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Hi.

I don't know if anyone else is having the same problem, but I'm
having tremendous difficulty following all of the messages in
this thread, much less the thread about the happenings
surrounding the RFC Editor function.  That includes the
side-thread about, e.g., whether one can describe, with facts
and careful reasoning, an idea or action as stupid without
insulting the intelligence of whomever was advocating it.  Many,
many messages.   If only to reduce the odds of re-inventing and
repeating what has been said before, I'm trying to read
everything in a thread before I start a response but it means I
am running hours, sometimes days, behind.  

It is especially problematic because I'm also trying to find
time to get some technical work done that much of the IETF seems
to think it important as long as _someone else_ puts in the time
to understand the issues and do the work [1].  I've has it
suggested to me off list that maybe most of those participating
actively in the discussions either don't have technical work to
do or have too much time on their hands.  I'd rather think that
priorities (and levels of support for IETF work) are different,
but I do suggest, as Randy Bush has pointed out a couple of
times, maybe it would be better if people took a deep breath,
let some of these discussions sink in, and actual get some
technical work done, including trying to finish I-Ds before
Monday's posting deadline and then actually reading enough of
those drafts to make IETF 106 more productive.  

Or perhaps, if these topics are really important enough, we
should call off the IETF 105 agenda and devote the meeting to
them, without conflicts and one day per topic.   I understand
the logistical problems with trying to do that in one large room
but perhaps smaller group parallel sessions and discussions on
the same subject (with people allocated at random or when rooms
fill up) and then summaries of conclusions would work even
better.

In any event, it is probably worth noting and remembering that
these very long threads on the IETF list get participation from
a very small fraction of the IETF community.  Whether others
tune out after looking at one message or a dozen, we aren't
hearing from them.  Because these topics have effects on the
entire IETF, how it works, and how it is perceived, real IETF
consensus --across the entire spectrum of IETF contributors and
other materially affected parties-- is important if decisions
are to be made.  It is difficult and perhaps impossible to draw
inferences about consensus across the IETF when only a handful
(or two) of people are participating.  It is even closer to
impossible if those people participating in a way that
discourages others from getting involved, however unintentional
(and respectful) the mechanisms that are being used.

A more substantive note or two follow, but I believe the above
is important and it saddens me that it didn't come from someone
in "the leadership".   

    john

[1] I'm not trying to be cryptic, just to keep the above short.
The very high-level summary of the topic area might be best
described as a set of questions.   Do any of you, or your
organizations, colleagues, or customers, use a language  that
cannot be written properly in ASCII characters and even
occasionally want to write it properly while using the Internet?
(Note that list of languages includes English.)  Would you, or
your organizations, colleagues, or customers find it helpful to
be able to use identifiers, user names, or other descriptors or
mnemonics that are not tied to English?  Do you think it is
important that everyone have confidence that strings that should
compare equal do so and that ones that shouldn't, don't?  Do you
understand that the problems the other questions imply are hard
and require either significant digging in or suggest that the
IETF should publicly give up and accept the consequences?   If
your answer to any of those questions is "yes", why are you not
digging in personally and why are you allowing the IESG to
essentially ignore the topics, not answer questions about how to
progress documents, and to set up mechanisms and then neglect
them sufficiently to ensure failure?