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!"