Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 17 April 2014 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
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 623391A0100 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:55:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.062
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] 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 2G9aH8SpXoBf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC4E1A0045 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.145.222]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3HLsgc6004864 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:54:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1397771695; bh=+4iTWoFJsV5SONg3aub3927choZHl+ghwP6cOWMS5GQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=W3X3LVim3uF7m69q9F5O34la70pxikEt/6CePVotHCo/t4CwrkkS9hfqjTRKcBvJ/ 7VX9Px5xTkmiAasSDEMYWSeDIrk9VOL+n8GHnc2VY8vRwmAsjxGsY6lgGwTr1ZmKmQ GC2JQX9lxSpfNt7T5yNjwi+7wzXL9t6npR9+4988=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1397771695; i=@elandsys.com; bh=+4iTWoFJsV5SONg3aub3927choZHl+ghwP6cOWMS5GQ=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=m5tXqKGkybtqN6rUAen/5Qy5NWOWBb7LdIiDInp1oVcryxEzaQV7SpfmBrPsUW4jR r3K55Fxm3JbTLkmw6nYdL6aUiE0aXhmIe9P1tXb1XaKiq3l3Q1ru2D1Of9Le4ygY2m EUig60yc3mxakeWerhe1hioTRMqMygcrjUL7TMvk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140417112406.0b7c9b70@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:48:31 -0700
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
In-Reply-To: <534FE1C3.3070103@cisco.com>
References: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com> <CABCOCHQU0H5wCei+1OROYdoMCorPLNxpmmfk4aphR9kkrv5MJw@mail.gmail.com> <534FE1C3.3070103@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nhx0-COX7TD7vQ6_-BZDjPySQKE
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:55:13 -0000

Hi Benoit,
At 07:14 17-04-2014, Benoit Claise wrote:
>We discussed during the milestones during one of the last plenaries.

Yes.

>The discussion was around: the milestones are indications and not deadlines.
>In Open Source project, these are deadlines.
>In the IETF, I would love to find a middle ground between the two.
>In the IETF, the only "deadlines" are the meetings, or to be more 
>precise, the submission deadlines just before the meetings.

Lisa used to send monthly progress reports.  It provided some 
visibility into what was happening within the area.

A milestone can be an estimate of when X can be completed.  I might 
suggest one and the group decides whether everyone can target that 
date and plan accordingly.  There are times when deadlines may be 
needed as an effort can end up in failure.

>Exactly, and we should understand why!
>I like this tool: 
><http://www.arkko.com/tools/lifecycle/>http://www.arkko.com/tools/lifecycle/<draft-name>-timing.html
>For example: 
><http://www.arkko.com/tools/lifecycle/draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-timing.html>http://www.arkko.com/tools/lifecycle/draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg-timing.html
>Where is the bottleneck? Is this a process issue? The 
>authors/shepherd/IESG/RFC-editors?
>I don't want to finger point, but understand what we should improve.

Let's see. :-)  The shepherd write-up does not provide me with much 
information.  There's three years from the first -00 to the latest 
version of the draft.  The author activity looks okay.  There is less 
activity from the document shepherd (there is an explanation for 
that).  There was a Last Call in April 2013.  The AD asked for a 
revised I-D in May 2013.  There was another Last Call in December 
2013.  The IESG didn't like something in the draft and it took seven 
months to address that.

There's still the two and a half years.  There are seven months 
between the date in the charter and the first Last Call.  It would 
take some effort to figure out what happened during the first two 
years.  It looks like the working group was the bottleneck.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy