Subject: RE: [newtrk] last call on newtrk draft charter

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 15:57:09 +0200

Hi Spencer,

Just to play the devil's advocate:

> If you don't fall into a category like these, you probably don't think
> we need WGS, either.

Would we need a WGS if we had some confidence that producing protocols
in the IETF would be done in a timely manner?  This includes time
spent in the WG, time spent in IESG review, time in the RFC
Editor's queue (not forgetting possible IANA delays), and so forth?

I could live without WGS, if I could have a good assurance that
protocols could be completed without undue delay.

John

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

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 10:01:02 -0500

The concept of a WGS disturbs me, because it seems like we're looking for
a way to publish the equivalent of a PS document that hasn't necessarily
been through any type of cross-area review...

Do you (the newtrk WG, not just you John) really believe that WGs should be
able to publish stable, long-lived specifications without the need to pass
through any cross-area review and approval process?

IMO, this will lead to a bad situation a few years down the road...
WGs will publish documents as WGS and they will be even more widely
implemented than I-Ds are today.  Eventually, the WG will want to
get an official standards imprimatur for their work.  But, at that
point, it will be even harder for the IESG (or equivalent) to impose
changes required to meet the scalability, security, congestion
avoidance or other cross-area criteria required for IETF standards.

I thought that we were all in agreement that we needed to find a way
to enable cross-area review _earlier_ in the process, but a WGS
just seems (to me) like a way for WGs to avoid it even longer than
they do today.

Margaret

.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:41:56 +0200

Margaret,

> through any cross-area review and approval process?

The IETF likes that people implement things before they become a PS.  Interop
events have been part of the IETF culture for a long time.  Various IETF-ers
have made fun of other SDOs that don't have any notion of running code.  However,
we are now in a situation where many companies don't want to invest the cost
to implement things when there is no notion that the standard is stable
or has the chance of becoming a PS within a reasonable timeframe.  I think
that the WGS has support precisely because it is damn hard to justify 
the expense of implementing something to cost-conscious management if
you are not reasonably sure that a protocol is realively stable.  I have
noticed a big downturn in interop events with new IETF protocols, and
I think that this might be one of the reasons why.

Alternatively, we could keep going as we are going, taking 3 or more years
to produce a protocol and wait until after we have a PS to expect folks
to implement it.

John

.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:56:30 +0200

Hi Margaret,

> Or, we could figure out how to fix the real problem (that it takes
> 3 years to get to PS) instead of applying a band-aid (WGS) that
> will make it easier to live with that problem, but that make have
> bad side-effects of its own.

That is, essentially, my point.  The need for WGS would evaporate if 
we could produce protocols in a reasonable & deteriministic amount
of time.

John

.

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:03:53 -0800

> > >Alternatively, we could keep going as we are going, taking 3 or
more
> years

But then, you have to address issues of power in the process. Today,
there are way too many parties who can block a publication. I don't see
a way to resolve that without introducing a publication step that is
less subject to power plays and blocking.

-- Christian Huitema

.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 10:11:57 +0100

This, of course, is one of the primary advantages of the WGS - controlling
what vendors deploy.  Once we have a recognised method is declaring a
particular draft to be "stable enough" then service providers would be
pretty silly if they accept any vendor's code that is not aligned to this
initial WG agreement.  This would become a simple "initial gate keeper"
that at least allows other participants in a WG some say on minimum quality
of a proposal - a definite advance over the current practice of "my I-D is
better than your I-D"

Likewise we obtain some control over people who take drafts outside IETF
and present them at other standards bodies with the claim that "this I-D is
nearing consensus within IETF" and so should be used as the basis for their
work.

- Alistair

                      Keith Moore                                                                                                         
                      <[email-masked]>          To:      "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>                            
                      Sent by:                    cc:      [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],            
                      owner-newtrk@lists.         [email-masked], [email-masked]                                         
                      uoregon.edu                 Subject: Re: [newtrk] last call on newtrk draft charter                                 

                      08/02/2004 21:30                                                                                                    
                      Please respond to                                                                                                   
                      Keith Moore                                                                                                         

> Conversely, I like the idea of a WGS or some equivalent precisely
> because we can get something published without being taken hostage by
> the umpteen blocking points that have been inserted in the process.

as long as the net can be taken hostage by vendors deploying a protocol
that
does harm, I think IETF needs to be able to take specifications hostage
until
those specifications are fixed.  it won't stop vendors from deploying
garbage
but it will at least create some doubt in the public mind that such garbage
is stable and well-designed.

naturally we'd like to find a better mechanism for producing good specs
in finite time, but bypassing external review doesn't sound like the
ticket.

Keith

.