Subject: Re: Reinforcing the Review decision

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 21:53:44 +0000

# We would like to ask the working groups consent for this.

"Aye."

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:06:42 +0100

We will not forward work if during a working group last call not at  
    least five people have gone on record that they thoroughly reviewed  
    the most current version of an I-D (and there is rough consensus to  
    forward the work).
    
    We would like to ask the working groups consent for this.

ACK.

	jaap

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:07:21 -0500

> We would like to ask the working groups consent for this.

Aye.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:16:32 -0500

> # We would like to ask the working groups consent for this.

Me too.

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110

---

From: Mark Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:11:20 +1100

> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> During the Vancouver meeting the folk in the room consented with the  
> proposal to only forward work to the IESG when we received minimum  
> number of statements of thorough review.
> 
> We would like re-iterate this proposal on the list and set the  
> minimum number to five.
> 
> That is:
> 
> Olaf and Olafur
> DNSEXT chairs.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Olaf M. Kolkman
> NLnet Labs
> http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

	Agreed.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: [email-masked]

---

From: "Scott Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:28:45 -0800

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Olaf M. Kolkman
> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 10:57 AM
> 

I agree to this as well

Scott

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:14:43 -0800 (PST)

How are you going to get folks to review the proposal if they dont
do it voluntarily as it is now and required number is not reached?

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> During the Vancouver meeting the folk in the room consented with the proposal 
> to only forward work to the IESG when we received minimum number of 
> statements of thorough review.
>
> We would like re-iterate this proposal on the list and set the minimum number 
> to five.
>
> That is:
>
> We will not forward work if during a working group last call not at least 
> five people have gone on record that they thoroughly reviewed the most 
> current version of an I-D (and there is rough consensus to forward the work).
>

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 02:07:32 +0000

# How are you going to get folks to review the proposal if they dont
# do it voluntarily as it is now and required number is not reached?

peer pressure.  either the wg, or the authors, or the design team, or
interested others, will tap on various shoulders, request, demand, bribe,
cajole, or even threaten, to get enough reviewers to step forward.

the ietf community and culture has many problems but this isn't one of
them.  if this rule goes into effect, then i predict immediate and
positive results for the quality of this WG's output.

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 23:15:12 -0500 (EST)

Killing the document is the ultimate threat, as Paul points out
there are ways, including prodding people personally.

In earnest if only 3 people care about a document is it worth
writing in the first place ?

 	Olafur

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:28:54 +0000

if only a small group are interested, there is always the individual 
submission route...

--bill

---

From: Ben Laurie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:22:00 +0000

Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
> We would like re-iterate this proposal on the list and set the minimum
> number to five.
> 
> That is:
> 
> least five people have gone on record that they thoroughly reviewed the
> most current version of an I-D (and there is rough consensus to forward
> the work).
> 

Yep.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/
**  ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ **
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---

From: Robert Martin-Legene <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:45:31 +0100

> We would like to ask the working groups consent for this.

This is reasonable.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:10:49 -0500

The individual submission ploy would likely not work in this case - 
i.e., work that fails to attract the interest of a WG won't be easily 
accepted by the IESG (and the IETF in general).  At least not work in 
the sense that folks generally want something to be standardized.

Informational and Experimental submissions may fly, though, I'll give 
you that, but not standards track.  Unless one individual can 
convince the IESG that the DNS working groups are all washed up on a 
topic.

Keep in mind is that there's a difference between engineering and 
document management.  If one person wants to implement a service that 
is only of interest to them, there's absolutely no stopping them.  If 
it's code they want, there's no one stopping them in doing it 
themselves or arranging a business arrangement with a DNS 
implementer.  (No, I'm not going to put in a plug here for anyone.) 
But the IETF is all about interoperability.  If interoperability of 
some feature is important, you will get people willing to work on a 
document.  The IETF stamp of approval should be reserved for that.

I think that sometimes we get caught up in document process 
self-importance.  Documents are not the important thing, nor are 
theoretic ideals.  What's important is providing a service to our 
community, i.e., collaboration on fundamental ideas and solving real 
problems.  Inter-area review is important, that's why IETF's are held 
in one large center three times a year.  Getting an idea into an RFC 
isn't the goal.

The IETF is an arena that thrives on innovation and innovative ideas. 
But ultimately the ideas that survive are those that benefit the 
non-IETF community.  I believe that this is the reason why Internet 
Drafts expire after 6 months - meritorious pipe dreams are noble but 
unimportant and we have to accept that.

So, I also agree that only ideas of widespread 
voluntary-as-far-as-the-IETF-goes should survive within a working 
group.  Admittance of an idea is not like getting tenure - the idea 
should be de-admitted once it falls from interest.

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

3 months to the next trip.  I guess it's finally time to settle down and
find a grocery store.

---

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 03:23:44 +0000

# Informational and Experimental submissions may fly, though, I'll give 
# you that, but not standards track.

i'm still waiting for an answer as to "in what way has experimental status
and being unwelcome on the standards track injured the SRV RR" ?

the standards track has two powers.  one is to focus the energy of ietf on
a somewhat-more-disciplined result than just "write a bunch of rfc's and
hope for the best".  the other is to inform industry as to which rfc's are
generally considered necessary-to-implement.

neither of those powers are necessary, or as it turns out, sufficient for
a technology to become popular.

if the WG doesn't care, then the IESG won't care.  experimental status is
enough to enable an open source implementation, and in some cases (like SRV)
to also enable proprietary implementations, and if those implementations
become popular then the experimentalness of the rfc status won't matter,
and the ietf will have functioned as a secretary and not as a forum.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:34:13 +0000

> the sense that folks generally want something to be standardized.

	true enough.

> convince the IESG that the DNS working groups are all washed up on a 

	in fact, they -SHOULD- fly.

> document.  The IETF stamp of approval should be reserved for that.

	er... the IETF doesn't do "interoperability"... it may demand
	that implementations are interoperable, but it does "do" that
	work.

> theoretic ideals.  

	what -IS- important is documenting choices and options. what was
	tried and why.  

> What's important is providing a service to our 

	RFC == Request For Comments  ...   getting ideas into a persistant,
	available, public archive is critical.  even bad ideas, false leads,
	and dead ends deserve to be documented ... if only to show others WHY
	we ended up where we did.   (this is where I REALLY disagree w/ the
	current IETF chair on his quest to expunge this type of material from
	the RFC archives.)

> unimportant and we have to accept that.

	IDs are "supposed" to be ephemeral places to draft ideas. If the 
	ideas are explored further, via implementation or other means, then
	IMHO, they are deserving of persistant documentation, e.g RFC status.
	The IETF got bogged down in Vendors insistance that RFCs were all 
	of equal weight...  hence the attempts to classify RFCs into catagories.
	... which fails.  So now there are serious attemtps to recast IDs as
	persistant documents...  a sad commentary on the documentation process.

> should be de-admitted once it falls from interest.

	i want a persistant archive of everything... even the goofy.
	but for WG acceptance, i'm comfortable w/ the bar we are setting
	for ourselves.  i'm in favor of indivual submission and getting
	RFC status for that kind of work, if only as experimental or informational.

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:03:10 -0500

>	that implementations are interoperable, but it does "do" that

What I meant is that interoperability is what it best talks about.

>	what -IS- important is documenting choices and options. what was

That would separate the IETF, an engineering organization, from a 
standards body, wouldn't it?

>	we ended up where we did.

That is what I feel too.  But, like what NAT and split brain DNS have 
done to end-to-end uniqueness and coherency, time may have passed by 
the notion of the RFCs being what just that.  I think that's as much 
a fault of the IETF (lack of education/outreach) as the vendor 
community (wants easy to consume standards).

>	i want a persistant archive of everything... even the goofy.

You would, Bill, you would. ;)
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:43:48 +0100

Thorough workgroup review adds credibility to the standards track  
document; how the community distinguishes between standards track and  
informational/experimental is somewhat out of scope for this list  
isn't it?

Not wearing a hat.

--Olaf

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:59:25 -0500

At 15:43 +0100 11/21/05, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
>Thorough workgroup review adds credibility to the standards track document;
>how the community distinguishes between standards track and informational/
>experimental is somewhat out of scope for this list isn't it?
>
>Not wearing a hat.

Hatless and balding-ly, I'd say that it is a consideration for the proposal.

Given that it seems to me that the current state of the IESG is to 
take any remotely DNS related document and pass it by the DNS working 
groups.  In some cases, if the working groups decide to not take the 
topic up, my assumption is that the IESG will refuse to pass the 
document.  Of course, one can always try to bypass the IESG and go to 
the RFC Editor - but the editor will ask the IESG for an opinion. If 
the editor is satisfied that it's not an IETF matter, the document 
goes on the backburner queue.  (The queue of documents handled when 
there's nothing else to do.  I've heard it from the editor - that 
non-IETF/IESG documents are handled when there's no IETF work to do.) 
Given that the editor takes so long to handle IETF documents, being 
on the backburner queue essentially kills a document.

What that all means is, if it is correct, that if an idea fails to 
meet the bar we set with this proposal, then the idea will never be 
recorded in an RFC in our careers.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:35:16 -0500

> on the backburner queue essentially kills a document.

To be fair, what we heard in a report in Vancouver is that there are
plans currently in implementation to try to make the queue move at
least as fast as the input.  So one could argue that this problem is
scheduled to be corrected.

But in any case. . .

> recorded in an RFC in our careers.

. . .even if that's true, it's not an objection.  I'd argue that the
answer to sub-optimal performance in one area of a system is surely
not to bodge up some other part of the system to avoid the problem,
in such a way that the bodged portion of the system thereby does not
work as planned.  I think that such a description is apt for
"everything goes through the WG, because if it doesn't, it won't get
any attention."  As others have already pointed out, if we can't get
at least 5 people to review a document, in what sense can it be
called a product of the "group"?

A

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:39:32 +0100

On Nov 21, 2005, at 15:59 , Edward Lewis wrote:
> take any remotely DNS related document and pass it by the DNS  
> working groups.  In some cases, if the working groups decide to not  
> take the topic up, my assumption is that the IESG will refuse to  
> pass the document.

I zoom in on "pass it by":

If documents that are outside of our charter need review then the  
IESG, or the relevant working groups  will seek to get that review,  
or in other words "pass it by" for review. Personally I commit to  
provide this sort of review (so now and then) and I  sincerely hope  
that there are more persons that are willing to make this sort of  
commitment.

We are now talking about review of DNSEXT working group documents.  
That is where we have our specific responsibility.

peer-namedropper,

--Olaf

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:30:49 -0500

At 16:39 +0100 11/21/05, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:

>it by" for review. Personally I commit to provide this sort of review (so now
>and then) and I  sincerely hope that there are more persons that are willing
>to make this sort of commitment.
>
>We are now talking about review of DNSEXT working group documents. That is
>where we have our specific responsibility.
>
>peer-namedropper,

Dear peer gynt,

Let's say bert.secret-wg.org decides that it is a good idea to put in 
a txt record at the apex of the zone that discloses the location of 
the next event Bert will attend and implements this.  Further, a 
draft is submitted, intended to ask for a new RR type "NXTEVT" to be 
used by all domains to state where they will next be represented and 
that this record SHOULD(2119) be included in all NS responses for the 
domain name.

You can bet that this would be "passed by" the DNSEXT WG and it would 
get thumbs down.  (Special processing, etc.)  This idea would never 
get to RFC with these rules.

However, this doesn't bar the proposer going ahead anyway and hack 
into an open source name server and put in this record.  There's 
nothing stopping this from being published under the "bad ideas" link 
of the Secret WG web site.

This kind of goofy idea, which Bill would like to see documented, 
would never make it to the RFC stage.  What a shame - imagine all 
that useless energy unwasted.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:48:06 +1100

[ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was posted by
   a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K.  
   With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore 
   delete relevant posts by non-subscribers. 
   Please fix your subscription addresses. ]

>     We would like to ask the working groups consent for this.

aye

   Geoff