Subject: [Mtgvenue] Why do we meet?

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:35:37 +0200

Folks,

(A cost of my coming up to speed as editor is that the process of my 
doing a detailed review of the current draft and possible changes 
produces lots of questions.  And since I don't have a history of making 
changes to the document yet, I need to ask the working group for 
comments and suggestions rather more than any of us would like. This 
parenthetical will be my only apology for this hopefully short burst of 
such queries...)

The draft has the text:

> Why do we meet?
>
>     We meet to advance Internet standards development, to advance Internet Drafts and RFCs...

This is a sufficiently basic statement that I don't want to change it 
without your comments:

My proposal is:

     We meet to advance the development of Internet Drafts and RFCs.

I think that reference to a particular status (ie, standards) is a 
distraction.  It's not that the reference is wrong but that it is 
incomplete and unnecessary.  We advance info and bcp documents to and 
they are also important.  Easier to just skip the status reference.

Yes?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:28:35 -0400

Hi Dave,

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> (A cost of my coming up to speed as editor is that the process of my doing
> a detailed review of the current draft and possible changes produces lots
> of questions.  And since I don't have a history of making changes to the
> document yet, I need to ask the working group for comments and suggestions
> rather more than any of us would like. This parenthetical will be my only
> apology for this hopefully short burst of such queries...)
>
> The draft has the text:
>
> Why do we meet?
>>
> incomplete and unnecessary.  We advance info and bcp documents to and they
> are also important.  Easier to just skip the status reference.
>
> Yes?

I don't think that the reference is to the status of documents.  It's to
the mission of the IETF - to produce solid Internet standards - and I do
think that is important.  The goal isn't to get more documents out - but to
get high-quality work that provides Internet Standards.  Getting the
documents out is a way that we accomplish the mission, but it isn't the
only one.

Regards,
Alia

> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:29:47 -0400

> they are also important.  Easier to just skip the status reference.

I think you mean to replace only the first sentence, which was:
      We meet to advance Internet standards development, to advance
      Internet Drafts and RFCs.  

I ask because of your ...

-- 
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:41:06 +0200

>       Internet Drafts and RFCs.

Sorry for the confusion.  Yes, I'm asking only about that one sentence.

To respond to Alia's note:

    My point is that it is the development of documents that is our 
work.  The fact that some are assigned standards status isn't really the 
primary goal.  Rather, it's an attribute we find useful to assign to 
/some/ of the documents.  In terms of the language in the draft, I read 
the reference to standards as inviting more text to refer to BCPs and 
Informational and maybe other stuff.  None of that seems useful for this 
place in the document, IMO.

d/

ps. There's some irony to this bit of exchange, since the IETF didn't 
used to be classed as a standards organization and in the late 1980s. I 
got into quite a bit of hot water for standing up and saying that we had 
become one...

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 14:22:42 -0400

I think the statements are too narrow. How about:

   We meet to improve the Internet, primary by advancing the
development of Internet Drafts and RFCs.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Internet
>>     >> Drafts and RFCs...
>    My point is that it is the development of documents that is our work.
> The fact that some are assigned standards status isn't really the primary
> goal.  Rather, it's an attribute we find useful to assign to /some/ of the
> documents.  In terms of the language in the draft, I read the reference to
> standards as inviting more text to refer to BCPs and Informational and maybe
> other stuff.  None of that seems useful for this place in the document, IMO.
>
> d/
>
> ps. There's some irony to this bit of exchange, since the IETF didn't used
> to be classed as a standards organization and in the late 1980s. I got into
> quite a bit of hot water for standing up and saying that we had become
> one...
>
>
>
> --
>
>   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 20:57:14 +0200

> development of Internet Drafts and RFCs.

Well...

< rant mode=personal >

      Personally the 'improve the Internet' phrasing has always struck 
me as too vague and frankly onerous.  It sounds impressive, of course, 
but it doesn't actually mean much.  And it encourages us to be too full 
of ourselves.  Worse we, the IETF, don't actually /do/ operations or 
otherwise /deliver/ services. So we really aren't the ones making the 
decisions that directly improve the Internet.  Rather, we are enabling 
those who do.  That's essential, of course, but it also is different.

< /rant >

<hat mode=editor>

      Anyhow, I think a simple statement that describes the actual 
/work/ we do is direct and intuitively meaningful.  It's not impressive, 
but it makes clear what our deliverables are.

</hat>

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 08:51:00 +1300

On 29/10/2016 07:57, Dave Crocker wrote:
> me as too vague and frankly onerous.  

Yes, but we're not here to re-legislate RFC 3935. I would go for something
like

We meet to pursue the IETF's mission [RFC3935], partly by advancing the
development of Internet-Drafts and RFCs.

(Partly? Yes, *partly*. A lot of other good stuff happens at the meetings.)

   Brian

> It sounds impressive, of course,