Re: v 1.2, IETF material
Einar Stefferud <Stef=poised@nma.com> Thu, 03 December 1992 10:14 UTC
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00945; 3 Dec 92 5:14 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00936; 3 Dec 92 5:14 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04432; 3 Dec 92 5:15 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa00931; 3 Dec 92 5:14 EST
Received: from ics.uci.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04411; 3 Dec 92 5:15 EST
Received: from nma.com by q2.ics.uci.edu id ad05971; 3 Dec 92 2:15 PST
Received: from localhost by odin.nma.com id aa23520; 3 Dec 92 1:36 PST
To: poised@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: v 1.2, IETF material
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 02 Dec 1992 14:40:37 -0800. <9212022240.AA16589@dscs.arc.nasa.gov>
Reply-to: Stef=poised@nma.com
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Einar Stefferud <Stef=poised@nma.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1992 01:36:51 -0800
Message-ID: <23518.723375411@nma.com>
X-Orig-Sender: stef@nma.com
From message <9212022240.AA16589@dscs.arc.nasa.gov> : } }Does the tension come from the unacknowledged existence of design teams or }the lack of a well-specified way for the WGs to deal with the proposals in }a fair manner? } }Barry It is both, individually some times, and combined at other times. Speaking directly in reference to the recent SMTP-EXT WG episode, John Klensin and I have been privately discussing how this was a factor in getting out collective tails caught in the wringer over a spontaneous design team effort to provide an alternative replacement intended to hopefully crystallize the issues related to an apparent IETF LAST CALL failure and thus help to lead the WG out of a difficult situation with a proper solution. The lack of common understandings about the propriety of such spontaneous design team actions and the lack of clear understanding about how to handle and process such contributions got in the way of our coming to terms over the whole thing, and led in the end to serious damage to relationships among the design team and the WG Chair. The way out was finally found by enlisting a new editor to take over the document source trees, and to take the role of acting Chair for the time it took to quietly sort out the technical issues. Now, John and I have come to a private understanding that we cannot hope to sort out all the things that did not go right in our struggle, but we do agree that the lack of clarity of design team rules was a large factor, and that it is critically important that we address these issues as best we can at the soonest possible time. We offer no specific time table, but I (without asking John) think we should put it among the IMPORTANT poised items on our TO DO list, for doing after we have done the URGENT poised things we agreed to do first. In this light, I want to make a suggestion for a temporary statement of policy that might serve to stabilize things while we work on the URGENT items list. To wit: 1. The concept of spontaneous design team formation for the purposes of developing contributions to Working Groups is endorsed, with certain conditions applied to the handling of design team contributions, if and when they are openly contributed to a WG. If design team results are never contributed, there is no issue. 2. The primary consideration for handling design team contributions is that they must be completely given over to the WG for review, comment, and revision according to WG rules and processes. That is, the WG in question may handle it in any way that enjoys fully open WG consensus on: (i) the processes employed; (ii) selection of the editor of the document source tree; and (iii) clear and open WG consensus on the end result. NOTE: These items are really no different than we should also apply to all work done in any WG, that is based on any externally generated contribution, such as from a single vendor/user or group of vendors/users, or even from a government. 3. It in not desirable at this time to overly-specify WG rules beyond the clearly stated requirements for open WG consensus on all the items listed in 2 above, in addition to all other requirements for open consensus with regard to WG activities and results. It is not now possible, and may never be possible or desirable, to fully specify these things beyond the rules in 2 above, though it is not precluded to spend effort on further refinement at some future time when we have more experience with this modest formal recognition of the useful existence and productive power of the Spontaneous Design Team Concept. I suggest that this be framed as an Experimental RFC to properly formalize it as an IETF experiment. I further suggest that we frame Carl's draft as a similar Experimental RFC to lock it in place, as a formally declared IETF experiment. This makes it into a set of operational guidelines, while clearly stating that we are not yet done with the development effort. As I see it, this clears the way for selection of Nominating Committees as of January 1, 1993, and provides a basis for ISOC action at its Dec 10, 1992 meeting where all this is on the agenda. I think it is time to post both as ID's, to be progressed as Experimental RFCs through the normal IETF/IAB processes, citing (poised) as the originating Working Group, operating with a charter from the ISOC. I will expect the IAB to endorse the RFCs over to the ISOC for consideration at their Dec 10, 1992 meeting. Onward!...\Stef As the Vulture said: "Patience My Ass, I'm Going to Go Kill Something!"
- v 1.2, IETF material Carl Malamud
- Change suggestion Re: v 1.2, IETF material Einar Stefferud
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material John C Klensin
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Erik Huizer
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Dave Crocker
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Bob Stewart
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material John C Klensin
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Barry M. Leiner
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Frank Kastenholz
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material John C Klensin
- Re: Design Teams (was v 1.2, IETF material) Bob Stewart
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Einar Stefferud
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Dave Crocker
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Einar Stefferud
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Vinton G. Cerf
- Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Gary Scott Malkin
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Dave Crocker
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Marshall Rose
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Bob Stewart
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") John C Klensin
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Marshall Rose
- Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Gary Scott Malkin
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Marshall Rose
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Barry M. Leiner
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Dave Crocker
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Einar Stefferud
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Beast (Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd)
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Frank Kastenholz
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Beast (Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd)
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") James R. (Chuck) Davin
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") John Curran
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Einar Stefferud
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Beast (Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd)
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Vinton G. Cerf
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Vinton G. Cerf
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Beast (Donald E. Eastlake, 3rd)
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Carl Malamud
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Vinton G. Cerf
- Re: v 1.2, IETF material Einar Stefferud
- v 1.2, IETF material Gary Scott Malkin
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Bob Stewart
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Einar Stefferud
- Re: Design Teams (was "v 1.2, IETF material") Dave Crocker