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

joel jaeggli <> Tue, 27 November 2012 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3075921F85FF for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:14:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eLlpoDoB-l2B for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:14:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A562E21F85E6 for <>; Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:14:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from joels-MacBook-Air.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qARIEb5v035588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:14:37 GMT (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:14:31 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Barry Leiba <>
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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-4.2.7 ( []); Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:14:37 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
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: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:14:49 -0000

On 11/27/12 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley <> wrote:
>>> That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
>>> waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work,
>>> and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says
>> This is all true.  Any decision come to during a meeting session must
>> be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list.  The reason for this
>> is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending
>> the meetings and paying the associated expenses.
> This brings up a question that I have as an AD:
> A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents
> have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into
> the document history for... to find that there's basically no history.
>   We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to
> the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion.  Nothing at
> all.
There are v6ops wg documents that have arrived in the IESG  queue with 
more than 1000 messages associated with them... I'm not sure that is 
indicative of any entirely healthy wg mailing list process but it does 
leave behind a lot of evidence.

even if all these things were healthy it seems like the actual outcomes 
would be wildly divergent given varying levels of interest.

>   The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a
> working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero and
> two responses (which say "It's ready."), and then it's sent to the
> responsible AD requesting publication.
> When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the
> response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was
> discussed in the face-to-face meetings.  A look in the minutes of a
> few meetings shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes
> show little or none of the discussion.
> We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the
> document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has "broad
> consensus of the working group."
> So here's my question:
> Does the community want us to push back on those situations?  Does the
> community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
> lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
> community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
> process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process
> was not properly followed?
> I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence.
> Please be brief and polite, as you respond.  :-)
> Barry, Applications AD