Subject: Logjam and "we gotta DO something!"

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:01:43 -0800

Not posting this to the IETF list as I don't think it materially  
contributes to that discussion. This is a comment for the management,  
if you will.

There is a comment I have heard frequently that there is a "logjam"  
and folks "aren't posting internet drafts". Since the 16th of  
December, there have been 144 newly posted drafts, and since the past  
IETF there have been 668. Comparison to a recent IETF, the one in  
Dublin: 37 drafts were posted during the meeting, 105 in August, 107  
in September, and 410 in October for a total of 659 between the two  
IETFs. 144 (Dec 16-present around a holiday) is more than 107  
(September), and 668 is comparable to the total updates Dublin-October.

My numbers will be off by the number of documents that were posted pre- 
MPLS and updated since (my mirror doesn't contain every version of  
every draft, only the current versions), but my main point is that I'm  
not sure that the statistics support the term "logjam".

Jul.txt        37 (after 24 July)
Aug.txt       105
Sep.txt       107
Oct.txt       410
Nov.txt       402
Dec.txt       206
Jan.txt        60 (to date, one week)

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:37:13 +0100

On Jan 9, 2009, at 7:01 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> contributes to that discussion. This is a comment for the  
> management, if you will.
>
> December, there have been 144 newly posted drafts, and since the  
> past IETF there have been 668. Comparison to a recent IETF, the one  
> in Dublin: 37 drafts were posted during the meeting, 105 in August,  
> 107 in September, and 410 in October for a total of 659 between the  
> two IETFs. 144 (Dec 16-present around a holiday) is more than 107  
> My numbers will be off by the number of documents that were posted  
> pre-MPLS and updated since (my mirror doesn't contain every version  
> of every draft, only the current versions), but my main point is  
> that I'm not sure that the statistics support the term "logjam".

Fair enough. There may not be a log jam (not sure who and how that  
term got introduced).

I've used the term Urgent and Important, I still think that is a  
correct characterization: but please prove me wrong.

I am aware off folk that are stalling on updating their 'bis' work.  
You may not see that in the stats, but it sure has impact on those  
individuals motivation, and the motivation of the wg-groups they  
operate in. But, I get your point and I think it would be useful to  
get a feel for the numbers.  I figure that the WG chairs have a pretty  
good sensor of what is going on.

A personal note on motivation: On my stack of things to do is an  
update of RFC4641. There are two editors on that draft: myself and  
Miek Gieben. Before I can submit draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis I have to  
make sure that RIPE NCC, my employer when I worked on RFC 4641, is OK  
with the new terms. I am sure that is just a formality, but still I  
want to do that due diligence before submitting the draft, that has to  
wait until the new license form is in effect. As far as Miek Gieben is  
concerned, he is not with his previous employer any longer.  
Fortunately that previous employer happens to be NLnet Labs so I can  
grant the rights. Personally I am comfortable to submit the bis draft  
under the BCP78 rules even though the bis draft contains significant  
chunks of material submitted by others under the old NOTE WELL... I  
take the risk because I trust folk to act in good faith. I am not sure  
wether my co-editor on 4641bis (or his employer) will be as comfortable.

--Olaf

-----------------------------------------------------------
Olaf M. Kolkman                        NLnet Labs
                                        Science Park 140,
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/               1098 XG Amsterdam

NB: The street at which our offices are located has been
renamed to the above.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:00:35 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Trustees" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Working Group Chairs" <[email-masked]>; "IAB" <[email-masked]>; "ISOC TRUSTEES" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 10:01 AM
> Subject: Logjam and "we gotta DO something!"
>
> IETF there have been 668.
...

There are several possible interpretations of these numbers, including:
   (1) the authors / editors of these documents are ignoring 5378
         (a) they treat it as just another incantation required by the
               publication mechanism, like the rest of the required boilerplate
         (b) they've read it, couldn't make sense of it, and decided that since
               nothing bad has happened to them in the past, they can safely
               ignore it
         (c) they've read it, understood it, and decided that need for publication
              outweighs whatever risk including the boilerplate entails.
   (2) the authors / editors of these documents have read and understood
         (and probably consulted with a lawyer) and are complying with 5378

I'd be rather surprised if all 144 of these i-ds fall into (2).

Randy

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:06:09 -0800

On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Olaf Kolkman wrote:

> Miek Gieben. Before I can submit draft-ietf-dnsop-rfc4641bis I have  
> to make sure that RIPE NCC, my employer when I worked on RFC 4641,  
> is OK with the new terms. I am sure that is just a formality, but  
> still I want to do that due diligence before submitting the draft,  
> that has to wait until the new license form is in effect. As far as  
> Miek Gieben is concerned, he is not with his previous employer any  
> longer. Fortunately that previous employer happens to be NLnet Labs  
> so I can grant the rights. Personally I am comfortable to submit the  
> bis draft under the BCP78 rules even though the bis draft contains  
> significant chunks of material submitted by others under the old  
> NOTE WELL... I take the risk because I trust folk to act in good  
> faith. I am not sure wether my co-editor on 4641bis (or his  
> employer) will be as comfortable.

I'm in a similar boat with several documents, and I'm not among the  
folks who have posted since 16 December. So I understand the concern.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:52:15 -0700

Fred,

I agree with your point that lots of drafts are getting posted and  
much of the work at IETF is proceeding more or less as normal.  
However, I am aware of cases of the following:

* documents ready to be published as RFCs blocked in Auth 48 due to this

* document in some stage of IESG review waiting for update where the  
update can not be submitted

* WG drafts that have been updated and are ready to publish as I-Ds  
but can't

* new drafts ready to be submitted as individual -00 drafts that can't  
due to text reuse

So the problem is impacting some work - I suspect that as the the  
wider community comes to understand what the issue is, there will be  
more things blocked so I greatly appreciated the efforts of Trustees,  
Russ, Olaf, and others to resolve this problem ASAP. I think it is  
critical that it be resolved well before the draft deadline for the  
next IETF meeting. If we can't have updates of the drafts before the  
meeting, I believe it will end up significantly delaying a substantial  
amount of work.

Cullen

On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Fred Baker wrote:

> < 
> Aug.txt><Dec.txt><Jan.txt><Jul.txt><Nov.txt><Oct.txt><Sep.txt><since- 
> Dec-16.txt>

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:41:18 -0800

I feel like this is being jammed through with a sense of urgency; for  
the trustees, that meant that we were given a ballot on 23 December  
with a reply-by date of 29 December, during which few of us were  
reading email much less giving significant time to discussing the  
detailed ramifications of legal language.

My point is that I think we need to take a deep breath and ask  
ourselves what has to be solved on what schedule. Not to say "it  
doesn't have to be solved" or "we don't need a temporary work-around,"  
but "what should that temporary work-around be" and "let's make sure  
we are solving the things we need to solve in the best way to solve  
them."

On Jan 12, 2009, at 6:52 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:

> * new drafts ready to be submitted as individual -00 drafts that  
> can't due to text reuse
>
> more things blocked so I greatly appreciated the efforts of  
> Trustees, Russ, Olaf, and others to resolve this problem ASAP. I  
> think it is critical that it be resolved well before the draft  
> deadline for the next IETF meeting. If we can't have updates of the  
> drafts before the meeting, I believe it will end up significantly  
> delaying a substantial amount of work.
>
> Cullen
>
>
>
>> Aug 
>> .txt><Dec.txt><Jan.txt><Jul.txt><Nov.txt><Oct.txt><Sep.txt><since- 
>> Dec-16.txt>
>

---

From: "Eric Rescorla" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 06:26:07 -0800

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I feel like this is being jammed through with a sense of urgency; for the
> trustees, that meant that we were given a ballot on 23 December with a
> reply-by date of 29 December, during which few of us were reading email much
> less giving significant time to discussing the detailed ramifications of
> legal language.
>
> My point is that I think we need to take a deep breath and ask ourselves
> what has to be solved on what schedule. Not to say "it doesn't have to be
> solved" or "we don't need a temporary work-around," but "what should that
> temporary work-around be" and "let's make sure we are solving the things we
> need to solve in the best way to solve them."

Well, the -00 draft deadline is March 2. The -01 is March 9. If we don't
have this solved by then, I'm aware of at least two WGs (P2PSIP and
TLS) which have major work items which cannot be submitted under
5378. I suspect that there are a significant number of others, and that
many of the drafts currently being submitted actually contain text
by non-authors which has not been properly cleared.

Obviously, we can simply have agendas which point to some external
site, but then we could also dispense with I-Ds altogether and just have
links to external sites. Is that the regime people want to operate in?

-Ekr

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:49:51 -0500

On Jan 14, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:

>> ourselves

Please note this earlier date, which is not blocking but desirable

February 23, 2009 Monday - Working Group Chair approval for initial  
document (Version -00) submissions appreciated by 17:00 PST (01:00  
Tuesday, February 24 UTC/GMT).

Marshall

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

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:26:31 +0000

>by non-authors which has not been properly cleared.
+1.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:49:28 -0600

While driving to work this morning, I was thinking exactly what Eric said in 
his note below...

> links to external sites. Is that the regime people want to operate in?

My suggested answer is, of course, "no".

Although the IETF culture is that we aren't standards guys, by and large, 
it's also worth pointing out that any participants who ARE standards guys 
will be explaining to managers why nothing is happening in our working 
groups, and that's not going to help meeting attendance.

Thanks to everyone who is working to resolve this issue.

Spencer

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:17:52 +1200

Ok I have heard of the problem but I have not heard of the possible  
solutions

Please advice

We have am executive committee meeting on the 19 and we can take fast  
temporary decisions then

Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question

On 15/01/2009, at 2:49, Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ISOC-trustees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-trustees

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:56:29 +0100

On Jan 14, 2009, at 7:17 PM, Franck Martin wrote:

>
> We have am executive committee meeting on the 19 and we can take  
> fast temporary decisions then

Who is "We" in the sentence above?

--Olaf

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 08:10:59 -0800

> Who is "We" in the sentence above?

If there is an action that comes from my viewpoint, it is an IESG  
action. I'm not at all sure that the consensus supports my viewpoint  
at this time.

> From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
> Date: January 15, 2009 8:05:06 AM PST
> To: Daniel Karrenberg <[email-masked]>
> Cc: ISOC TRUSTEES <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: [isoc-trustees] Logjam and "we gotta DO something!"
>
> It is a discussion between myself and Russ, primarily. My point in  
> that email is that he is pushing "we have to adopt this pronto"  
> because of major issues, and I am saying that the proper action is  
> for the IESG to give us more time to think about what the *right*  
> thing to do is.
>
> I thought I sent it to the IETF Trust trustees, not the ISOC  
> trustees. Did I hit the wrong list?
>
> On Jan 15, 2009, at 2:16 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>
>> Fred,
>>
>> please let me know exlicitly if this should move from "FYI" to  
>> "requires
>> ISOC board action".  Both the ISOC board and I personally are in a  
>> "high
>> load" regime right now and we might miss an implicit call for action.
>>
>> DAniel
>

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:56:46 +1200 (FJT)

We is "ISOC Trustees" as we are on cc to this thread.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Olaf Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Franck Martin" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>, "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked]>, "Trustees" <[email-masked]>, "Working Group Chairs" <[email-masked]>, "ISOC TRUSTEES" <[email-masked]>, "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, 16 January, 2009 1:56:29 AM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected
Subject: Re: [isoc-trustees] [Trustees] Logjam and "we gotta DO something!"

--Olaf

---

From: Alejandro Pisanty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:00:31 +0000 (UTC)

Hi,

one of "we" is the fabled armored battleship and the other "we" is the 
equally fabled lighthouse.

Wrong Board of Trustees, it seems - this was a matter for the IETF Trust 
BoT and the ISOC BoT has been accidentally involved too.

It causes me great relief to see that posting to the wrong list is an 
accident that can happen even to the founding parents...

Also a revision is needed as some email has gone to the list that might 
have had to be blocked by policy (supposed to be a closed list). Concern 
but also the same relief...

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732

*Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
*LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
*Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
  Participa en ICANN, http://www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Franck Martin wrote:

> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:56:46 +1200 (FJT)
> From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
> To: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>, Trustees <[email-masked]>,
>     Working Group Chairs <[email-masked]>,
>     Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>, Fred Baker <[email-masked]>,
>     ISOC TRUSTEES <[email-masked]>

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:04:43 -0500

Franck

Thanks for your interest.  I believe the ISOC Trustees was  
inadvertently placed on this email thread.  This is a matter for the  
IETF Trust and the IESG.  I would expect any further replies to this  
email thread will remove the ISOC BoT from the list.

Ray Pelletier
Trustee, IETF Trust

On Jan 15, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Franck Martin wrote:

> Cc: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>, "Cullen Jennings" <[email-masked] 
> >, "Trustees" <[email-masked]>, "Working Group Chairs" <[email-masked] 
> >, "ISOC TRUSTEES" <[email-masked]>, "Fred Baker" <[email-masked] 
> >