Subject: [HOKEY] new editor needed

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:26:54 +0700

It appears that we need new editors for the pre-authentication problem
statement and key management drafts.  Volunteers?

_______________________________________________
HOKEY mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hokey

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:57:49 +0800

Hi,all:
If possible, may I be a volunteer?
Best Regards!
-Qin

---

From: Ashutosh Dutta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:52:40 -0500

Folks,
       As an early contributor to the Pre-authentication draft, I think 
Yoshi has done an excellent job in editing and contributing to the draft 
so far. All the contributors of the  current pre-authentication draft 
are of the same opinion. I fail to understand why we need new editor at 
this point, unless there is a WG consensus to have new editor.

We should not get into the habit of changing editors without any WG 
consensus or obvious reason.

Regards
Ashutosh Dutta
As the contributor of the EAP Pre-authentication draft.

---

From: Subir Das <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:47:07 -0500

What is the problem with the current editor?

---

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:51:32 +0800

Hi,Folks:
Please excuse me if what I said offends somebody,:) Actually pre-authentication is one topic I interest. my intention is to
do more work to move it forward. I don't understand what the volunteer here means for I am just starting to work in this field.
Best Regards!
-Qin

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:16:23 +0700

Ashutosh Dutta [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

I've received several emails along this line, so in the interest of saving
time. I'm going to respond to all of them at once.

> this point, unless there is a WG consensus to have new editor.

Section 6.1 RFC 2418 states:

   The Working Group Chair is concerned with making forward progress
   through a fair and open process, and has wide discretion in the
   conduct of WG business.  The Chair must ensure that a number of tasks
   are performed, either directly or by others assigned to the tasks.

   The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions,
   on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working
   group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the
   IETF.  The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in
   making those decisions at the request of the Chair or when
   circumstances warrant such an intervention.

Note that the staffing of the WG includes document editors.  I see nothing
in the above that suggests that document editors are to be chosen by popular
vote, nor even that WG consensus is required to play a major part in the
selection process (and, in fact, it did not in this case).  As for
contributors to (or even individual authors of) documents, once editorial
control has been transferred to the IETF their opinions have exactly the
same weight as any other WG member, that weight being determined by the
validity of their arguments.

> consensus or obvious reason.

The reasons for the replacement of the document editor(s) are private and I
shall keep them confidential.  I will note, however, that they have little
or nothing to do with technical differences between members of the WG
(except in the most obvious ways) nor any nefarious efforts by the Co-Chairs
to squelch any technical opinions.

...

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:40:49 +0700

> statement and key management drafts.  Volunteers?

RFC 2418 states:

6.3. Document Editor

   Most IETF working groups focus their efforts on a document, or set of
   documents, that capture the results of the group's work.  A working
   group generally designates a person or persons to serve as the Editor
   for a particular document.  The Document Editor is responsible for
   ensuring that the contents of the document accurately reflect the
   decisions that have been made by the working group.

   As a general practice, the Working Group Chair and Document Editor
   positions are filled by different individuals to help ensure that the
   resulting documents accurately reflect the consensus of the working
   group and that all processes are followed.

Note that the decisions of the WG are stated by the WG Chair(s) as a result
of their evaluation of the WG's rough consensus; bluntly put, the Chair(s)
tell the editor what to write and the editor writes it down.  If you do not
feel that you would be comfortable in such a role, please refrain from
volunteering.

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:46:55 +0700

Glen Zorn [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

...

> control has been transferred to the IETF their opinions 

And I should add, those of the Chair(s) and ADs (when not speaking 'ex
cathedra' :-) and editor(s).

> have exactly the same weight as any other WG member, that weight being
determined by the

...

---

From: Ashutosh Dutta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:57:02 -0500

Mani, Alper thanks for your opinion on the whole process of calling for 
a new editor. I am also copying to the whole group to make things clear 
and bring transparency to this unjust matter.

With due respect to the co-chairs, I think the whole process of trying 
to get a new editor is far from being logical and there is no 
transparency to this process at all.  I have been following the email 
thread on the discussion of inclusion of certain scenarios of 
pre-authentication, there has not been any conclusion yet on this issue 
and no WG consensus has been reached on this technical issues. The 
discussion was still going on with WG members providing their input.

Thus, calling for a new editor for this draft without any proper logic 
and reasoning is immature and is uncalled for at this time.

I think WG and IETF in general need more transparency in the whole 
process of getting a new editor. I am sad to see that it is lacking in 
this specific case and there is no logical process involved here. I hope 
we can do a better job of maintaining transparency and logic within the 
WG and IETF.

Regards
Ashutosh Dutta
A longtime IETFer

Mani, Mahalingam (Mani) wrote:
> I opine likewise (unless Yoshi has expressed to the chairs any 
> inability to continue) - or there is a WG-conviction/need to have more 
> than one editors.
>  
> -mani
> *From:* Alper Yegin
> *Sent:* Tue 12/23/2008 12:04 PM
> *To:* 'Ashutosh Dutta'; 'Glen Zorn'; [email-masked]
> *Cc:* [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]
> *Subject:* RE: [HOKEY] new editor needed
>
> I agree with Ashutosh.
>
> Alper
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ashutosh Dutta [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 9:56 PM
> > To: Glen Zorn; [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Ashutosh Dutta
> > Dear Chairs of HOKEY WG,
> >                                         As an early contributor to the
> > Problem statement draft, I do not see any reason why we need a new
> > editor now. Yoshi has a done an excellent job of editing this draft
> > from
> > the beginning and bringing it to this stage. If there are any
> > difference
> > of opinions on any technical issues that can be solved by discussion or
> > in the WG consensus.
> > 
> > As long as Yoshi likes to continue to be the editor, I do not
> > understand
> > why we need a new editor. I am copying to other contributors of the
> > draft to find out what they feel about it.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Ashutosh Dutta
> > Contributor to EAP Pre-authentication Problem Statement draft
> > 
> > Glen Zorn wrote:

---

From: Subir Das <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:59:27 -0500

> feel that you would be comfortable in such a role, please refrain from
   I failed to understand your points here. Why do we need a WG then?  I 
would like to point out the last
   sentence of your quote from RFC 2418  "to help ensure that the 
resulting documents accurately reflect
   the consensus of the working group and that all processes are 
followed". If you are correct, we should
   then suggest to delete this sentence from the RFC. 
> ___________________________
> HOKEY mailing list
> [email-masked]

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 15:51:40 +0700

Subir Das [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

>    I failed to understand your points here. Why do we need a WG then?

The WG forms a rough consensus, the WG Chair(s) report it to the Document
Editor (if any), the Document Editor records it (it's not a creative writing
assignment ;-).  What part don't you understand?

> I
> followed". 

You seem to be implying that some process has not been followed.  Maybe
you'd like to do more than imply?  I would like to point out the _entire_
last sentence of my quote from RFC 2418: "As a general practice, the Working
Group Chair and Document Editor positions are filled by different
individuals to help ensure that the  resulting documents accurately reflect
the consensus of the working group and that all processes are followed."
The purpose of this guideline, as I understand it, is to prevent any one
person from controlling the technical content of a document, either the
chair or the editor.  Neither document editors nor WG Chairs are elected:
document editors are appointed by the WG Chairs who are appointed by the
IESG.  Furthermore, being the editor (or even sole author) of a document
_before_ it is adopted as a WG item does not guarantee the same status
_after_ it is adopted, any more than chairing a BoF that becomes a WG
guarantees that the BoF chair will also chair the WG.  For example, I have
chaired several BoFs that led to the formation of WGs but was not selected
to chair those groups (poor decisions, IMO, but that's the way it goes ;-).
Finally, you seem to be suggesting that the role of the Document Editor is
to gauge WG consensus on his/her own, possibly disputing or refusing to
follow the instructions of the WG Chairs resulting from their own
evaluation.  If I am correct in that perception, perhaps you would like to
offer some evidence for the institutionalization of such power struggles?

...

---

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:48:26 +0200

Not volunteering for any document to edit but: What document(s) are we
talking about? 

>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of ext Glen Zorn
>Sent: 24 December, 2008 11:47
>To: [email-masked]; 'Charles Clancy'; 'Ashutosh Dutta'; 
>'Alper Yegin'; 'Mani, Mahalingam (Mani)'; 
>'Tim Polk'
>Cc: [email-masked]
>> Note that the staffing of the WG includes document editors.  I see 
>> nothing in the above that suggests that document editors are to be 
>> chosen by popular vote, nor even that WG consensus is 
>required to play 
>> a major part in the selection process (and, in fact, it did not in 
>> this case).  As for contributors to (or even individual authors of) 
>> documents, once editorial control has been transferred to the IETF 
>> their opinions
>
>And I should add, those of the Chair(s) and ADs (when not 
>speaking 'ex cathedra' :-) and editor(s).
>

---

From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:37:22 -0800

Hi Glen,

The WG chairs do get to choose document editors. That is correct.

However, since so many folks are asking why the editor is being
changed, I think you owe an explanation to the WG. These folks do
represent the WG. Note that the WG consensus can trump a chair's
decision.

Vijay

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:08:40 +0700

> However, since so many folks are asking why the editor is being changed, I
think you owe an explanation to the WG. 

No.  Some portion of the public may develop a morbid desire to know the
juicy details of a celebrity couple's break-up but that engenders no
responsibility upon the part of couple to reveal those details.  Let me be
even more clear, since there seems to be some misunderstanding: from my POV,
this is simply none of your business.  Yoshi, however, is fully aware of the
details & if he wishes to publish them to the world that is his prerogative.

> These folks do

No.  If you'd like to give some authoritative reference for this bizarre
claim WRT the selection of a Document Editor, please do. 
 
...

---

From: Subir Das <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:15:56 -0500

> assignment ;-).  What part don't you understand?
  I didn't understand your earlier statement about " bluntly put, the 
Chair(s) tell the editor what to write and the
  editor writes it down". Now your above explanation is different.

> you'd like to do more than imply?  
    No I didn't. My point was w.r.t. your same statement "bluntly put, 
the Chair(s) tell the editor what to
  write and the editor writes it down."

> I would like to point out the _entire_
> chair or the editor.  
   Agreed and that the way I also understand it.
> Neither document editors nor WG Chairs are elected:
     I think you are not alone:-))
> offer some evidence for the institutionalization of such power struggles?
   I am definitely not suggesting this.  As Mani mentioned  "unless 
Yoshi has expressed to the chairs any inability
   to continue", is it not obvious that some of us will have the similar 
question?

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:40:12 -0500

Glen,

Since the decision is not mine, it's not my prerogative to explain it
to the WG.  

Note that I am also one of the WG members who are confused with your
announcement.

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:03:04 -0800

This is getting bizarre.

> claim WRT the selection of a Document Editor, please do.

If the majority of the WG thinks if the current document editor is
fine, then the WG chair should go with it, instead of trying to change
the editor. This does not require some text in some RFC.

Vijay

---

From: "Dave Nelson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 16:19:10 -0500

Vijay Devarapalli writes...

> fine, then the WG chair should go with it, instead of trying to 
> change the editor. This does not require some text in some RFC.

I have no insight into the specifics / merits of this issue.  I will point
out, however, from a process /procedural perspective, that the Document
Editor(s) serves at the pleasure of the WG Chair(s) and the WG Chair serves
at the pleasure of the Area Director.  In matters of protocol and document
development the IETF runs by rough consensus, i.e. by democracy.  In matters
of governing structure it runs as a benevolent dictatorship. :-)

Having said that, wise chairs are guided by the sentiment of their working
groups.  If a chair abuses the wide discretionary authority afforded under
the IETF process, a side discussion with the relevant Area Director may be
in order.  Many times these issues can be resolved without resort to a
formal appeal process, which is always available as the remedy of last
resort.

---

From: "Dan Harkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:27:59 -0800 (PST)

Hi Yoshi,

  Document editors serve at the pleasure of the WG chairmen and the WG
chairmen gauge WG consensus and instruct the editor to put it into the
document. If (one of?) the WG chairmen would like a new editor perhaps
it is because the existing editor refused to put what they (he?) thinks
is WG consensus into the document he edits.

  Did you refuse to add some text to the document you edit? If so
what was that text?

  Dan.

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:25:56 -0500

I am answering to Dan's question from editor's point of view.

I believe that I have never refused (nor even delayed the editorial
process), to add to the documents I am editing, some text on which WG
consensus has been made.  More detailed explanation is provided below.

[1] With regard to hokey-key-mgm draft, based on the private
discussion with chairs happened after Glen's announcement about need
for new editor, Glen seems to think that WG consensus on the removal
of Kerberos and the exclusive use of AAA was established in IETF69
Chicago meeting in July 2007, and I explained to Chairs that the
consensus in IETF69 Chicago meeting is the consensus in the meeting
room, and I do not think a WG consensus was established at the time of
Chicago meeting, based on the fact that a formal WG consensus call was
called on July 23, 2007 to verify the consensus in the meeting
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hokey/current/msg00687.html).  A
fair amount of email exchanges on this consensus call continued until
end of August, 2007.  I did not see an announcement from Chairs about
the final decision about the consensus call before Vancouver meeting.
So I assume there had been no established WG consensus before
Vancouver meeting.  (My understanding is that Russ Hously's
presentation in IETF 70 Vancouver meeting in December 2007 about AAA
proxy is to help the WG to establish a clear consensus.)

At the time of IETF71 Philadelphia meeting in March 2008, there were
still two major issues regarding (i) whether we should rely on AAA
protocol security or develop a protection mechanism on top of AAA, and
(ii) whether peer consent is needed to distribute DSRK.  Issue (i) was
quickly resolved in the meeting, but issue (ii) remained unresolved
until IETF 72 Dublin meeting in July 2008.

I believe the latest version of key-mgm draft
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hokey-key-mgm-04.txt)
contains all stuff that reached WG consensus.

[2] With regard to hokey-preauth-ps draft, the draft went through WG
last call twice, and I believe the latest version of preauth-ps draft
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-hokey-preauth-ps-05.txt)
contains all stuff that was agreed at the time of the WGLCs.  I know
that there is ongoing discussion about Qin's comments.  The draft will
be revised once the ongoing discussion ends with WG consensus.

Yoshihiro Ohba

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:29:53 +0700

Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> I believe that I have never refused 

Very true, you have not refused outright; instead, you smiled, nodded & did
nothing.  This is sometimes characterized as "passive-aggressive" behavior.

> (nor even delayed the editorial
> process), 

See below.

> to add to the documents I am editing, some text on which 

in your opinion

> WG consensus has been made.  More detailed explanation is provided below.
> 

You leave out the detail (which might seem important to some) that the
changes you were repeatedly instructed to make removed your own preferred
techniques.

> be revised once the ongoing discussion ends with WG consensus.

Thank you for making my case for me.  What you don't seem to understand or
accept is that the personal assessment of WG consensus of the Document
Editor is largely irrelevant.  There is a reason why Internet-Drafts are
both serial and ephemeral: the WG forms a rough consensus, the WG Chair(s)
gauge (by whatever means) that consensus and announce it (again, by whatever
means) and the Document Editor records it.  A formal consensus call is _not_
required & in fact such a call is often counterproductive since it is
surprisingly (to me, anyway) easy to recruit people who have never been
heard from before and disappear immediately after to "vote" as they are
told.  A far more effective technique to discover WG consensus is simply to
change the draft to conform w/the Chair(s) perception of consensus, post it,
and see who screams, how loudly & what about.  This has been explained to
you at least once by myself in the past (smile, nod, do nothing).  Your
behavior and your apparent (as stated by you in this message) belief that
your personal assessment of WG consensus trumps all others (including the WG
Chairs & the AD), in combination with your recent attempt to manufacture
from whole cloth authoritative (if not technical) support for your position
on preauthentication by intentionally & unrepentantly mischaracterizing a
technical change to a published RFC as a correction to an editorial error
have convinced me that you are far more interested in controlling the
content of WG documents than in honestly recording WG consensus as directed
by those whose job it is to do so.  This is simply unacceptable.

...

---

From: Ashutosh Dutta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 01:03:53 -0500

> told.  

Glen, is this a new rule in IETF NOT to ask for a formal WG consensus 
call on any debated technical issue?

As far as I know the discussion on pre-auth PS was still going on and no 
WG consensus was reached. It is proper to ask for a WG consensus call 
after the WG members get a chance to engage in the technical debate. 
That is what is exactly is going on now in the mailing list with respect 
to Preauth problem statement draft. People are still engaged in the 
technical discussion. At some point we need to reach a WG consensus.

Regards
Ashutosh

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:13:31 +0700

> call on any debated technical issue?

There is no "rule" that says it must be done.

> technical discussion. At some point we need to reach a WG consensus.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: I wasn't talking about the current, on-going
discussion on preauthentication.

...

---

From: "Glen Zorn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:57:56 +0700

> in order.  

FYI, the relevant AD (& several others) has been involved in the (formerly
private) conversations regarding this matter from the beginning.

...

---

From: Subir Das <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:26:17 -0500

"A far more effective technique to discover WG consensus is simply to
change the draft to conform w/the Chair(s) perception of consensus, post it,
and see who screams, how loudly & what about." 

Yes, this may be effective in certain cases but is it Chair's perception 
that there is a WG consensus on the pre-auth scenario that is currently under 
technical debate?

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:41:06 -0500

> nothing.  This is sometimes characterized as "passive-aggressive" behavior.

I had no intent for taking passive-aggressive behavior either.

> changes you were repeatedly instructed to make removed your own preferred

If it is the case, it may be because (important) instructions were not
made clear or not based on WG consensus.

> you at least once by myself in the past (smile, nod, do nothing).  

I don't think you explained such a technique to me.  Also, it is not
clear in your technique what "post it" means.  Does it mean posting
text to the mailing list or submitting a new version of draft?

> Your behavior and your apparent (as stated by you in this message) belief that

You seem to agree with my above assessment from editor's point of view
on development process of key-mgm draft (except for instructions you
mentioned above).  With regard to the errata on RFC 5247, I also
posted the errata to the hokey list because I thought the errata may
be related to the ongoing discussion about preauth-ps draft so that if
some members have different opinions they can react accordingly for
openness and fairness.  Actually you immediately reacted and
appreciated my announcement of the errata.  So I am wondering what's
wrong with it.  I am interested in the technical content of the
documents as a technical contributor while being an editor, and
participating in technical discussion.  My technical opinion should be
treated nothing more than opinions from others in WG consensus
building process, and I have absolutely no intent to go beyond that
point.

Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba