Subject: RE: Using WGS to bypass external review (was: Re: [newtrk] last call on newtrk draft charter)

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:23:35 -0800

> OK, can we define "external review" precisely enough to say "if you
> show up with evidence of working group consensus and external review,
> that's good enough for a WGS"? If we can, I agree with this
> suggestion.

Keith pus up the straw man that if we digress from the current process,
"the net can be taken hostage by vendors deploying a protocol that does
harm". Well, I think that is precisely what happens if we cannot get
some reviewed document published in a relatively short term. Since
consensus appears unattainable, vendors just ship their own stuff, and
damn the torpedoes. In fact, it is not just vendors. P2P file exchanges
represent about 50% of the Internet traffic today, and none of that is
defined in any Internet draft, let alone an RFC.

> FWIW, I am not opposed to reviews, only slow reviews.

What slows reviews is the accumulation of blocking points, where random
parties can block a consensus among other parties. The only way to have
the review be not so slow is to reduce the number of parties who have to
approve a publication, and specifically to not require IESG approval.
That does not mean absence of reviews. It just means that reviews for
1st stage documents should be limited in scope, maybe to just a WG
review.

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:19:38 -0500

> damn the torpedoes. 

Yes.  We want to avoid both extremes.  The way to keep vendors from just
shipping their own stuff is to produce good standards more quickly but also
to have high confidence that such standards will not need to be significantly
changed.

>In fact, it is not just vendors. P2P file exchanges

That has nothing to do with standards.  People use nonstandard p2p file
exchange protocols not because there is no standard protocol (FTP is one
of the oldest standards there is, and HTTP would be adequate for this also)
but because ISPs have created conditions (NATs, restrictive service
agreements, dynamic address assignment for people with full-time connectivity)
that make it difficult to use standard protocols.

Well, I certainly don't want to get in a situation where we have to
standardize every protocol that is used on the Internet.

> parties can block a consensus among other parties. 

What slows reviews is the refusal of groups to accept valid input from
outsiders whom they (often quite arrogantly) consider "random".  In my
experience, IESGers spend far too much time trying to fix things that are
fundamentally broken.  If you want IESG to spend less time reviewing 
documents, give them documents that aren't broken.  I assure you, IESG
will not complain if you make their work easier.

Keit
 
.