Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"

Edward Lewis <> Thu, 29 November 2012 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA3821F8A91 for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:55:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.112
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.112 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.510, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Bjh-f-Qwe5G for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B76E21F8A9C for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eastrmimpo210 ([]) by (InterMail vM. 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <> for <>; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:54:59 -0500
Received: from [] ([]) by eastrmimpo210 with cox id VSuy1k00H3cuADQ01SuyCl; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:54:59 -0500
X-CT-Class: Clean
X-CT-Score: 0.00
X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020208.50B77743.017E,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
X-CT-Spam: 0
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=R/2B6KtX c=1 sm=1 a=d1qrA6Qzssd1VjKW2xnq3A==:17 a=rF00rw514xQA:10 a=hGBaWAWWAAAA:8 a=tWcmSJXfkFgA:10 a=_uzwh7vSzyqAhrw6kWcA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=9k6G2--EmesA:10 a=agg2HGAVC6OLpUPsuK0A:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=G3reoBGSmkuZ1qkS:21 a=d1qrA6Qzssd1VjKW2xnq3A==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Authentication-Results:; none
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_148DD917-9CD9-438B-859F-FEA883B93BA0"
From: Edward Lewis <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:54:58 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <20121127231404.GC1941@verdi> <> <> <> <>
To: IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: Edward Lewis <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:55:01 -0000

On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:42, Eliot Lear wrote:
> A simpler explanation is that the authors and editors of work are more
> immersed than others, and therefore project more authority.

To me, when "projecting authority" one is either demonstrating a deeper understanding of the topic than others or is bullying the others.  So I have a mixed reaction to that statement.  One the one hand it could be that work done elsewhere and brought the IETF comes along with people helping to educate the IETF or comes with people bullying the IETF.

I guess what I'm trying to express is that when baked work is brought into the IETF it is subjective whether the process is healthy or not.

Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs seem to be WG's that have already been meeting in secret.  I agree with that.  At the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled in sessions with BOFs and found that the ones I chose seemed as if they were already on the way to a predetermined solution.  Only one had a presentation trying to set up the problem to be solved, others just had detailed talks on draft solutions.  In one there was a complaint that the mail list wasn't very active - not a WG, a BOF!  Not very engaging.

Bringing in baked work because there are multiple independent and non-interoperable solutions is what the IETF is all about.  Bringing in a baked specification just to get a stamp on it is not.

Edward Lewis             
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, and responses.