Subject: "I am a strong believer in the democratic process."

From: "Mike O'Dell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:35:19 -0400 (EDT)

if so, you should stay far, far away from the IETF.

it is not "democratic", never has been and never should be

it is a meritocracy of a quite rude and abrasive sort
and that's neither an accident nor a bug

good ideas don't need the benefit of the doubt

if you have an idea but it isn't yet baked enough
to withstand a public proctological examination, keep working
on it in private, among yourselves, however you choose
to work, until it is baked and you can defend its
architecture and design.  

THEN you can ask for a working group.

working groups attempting to design a half-baked idea
not only don't get the benefit of the doubt, 
they shouldn't get the benefit of existance in the first place.

"We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
 We believe in rough consensus and running code."
			-Dave Clark, Internet Architect

 "I know rough consensus when I feel it."
			-Anonymous IESG Area Director

So much for parlimentarianism.

	-mo
	ex-Anonymous IESG Area Director

---

From: "Scott Brim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:04:54 -0400

> 			-Dave Clark, Internet Architect

Despite the t-shirts and all, I continue to believe I heard him say
"working" code.

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:11:00 -0500

In my opinion, it is a matter of Leading Edge vs. Trailing Edge.
The IETF used to be a leading edge group. It created things.
Now the IETF is a trailing edge organization. It discovers things.
One of the problems with this is that when things are discovered,
IETF members claim they created them, and only reference their
own members.

I suppose if man ever lands on Mars, some people on Earth will
claim we built Mars, and then flew there...

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif
http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp

---

From: jamal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:25:22 -0400 (EDT)

> 			-Anonymous IESG Area Director

Absolute bullshit on both quotes. Sometimes lies become truths
for those who believe hard and see that king is infact well dressed
rather than naked.
Sure, the quotes sound sweet and beckon the revolutionary on.
But please spare us the propaganda or what you'd like to refer to as the
mantra.
The IETF Does not believe in running code. The IETF used to.
Very rarely do ideas come into existence and working groups getting formed
because someone has running code.
The Anonymous IESG area director does not know how to feel rough
consensus s/he knows how to feel the wind ...
So before you put on your righteous hat and select justice look around
you; blessed are they who sit on a pin-head, for they shall rise fast.

cheers,
jamal

PS:
[This is not personally intended to you, rather people who post using
the same theme]

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:54:12 -0500

Maybe...."rough consensus and working TLDs"....???
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12223.html

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
"Proof of Concept TLD Development...and Multiple TLD Clusters"

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-NZ.com
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
0:212 - BIZ World

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 10:06:45 -0700

> you; blessed are they who sit on a pin-head, for they shall rise fast.

another major contributor speaks from deep experience.  much appreciated.
<smiley for dripping sarcasm badly needed>

randy

---

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:41:27 -0400

> Despite the t-shirts and all, I continue to believe I heard him say

I was there as well, while memory does get foggy over time, I'm pretty
sure I heard him say "running code", since I'm pretty sure that it was
in that same speech when Dave Clark made the joke that while sometimes
it seems like we believe in "running consensus and rough code", on the
whole the system works pretty well.

But of course, memory could be playing tricks on us all.

						- Ted

---

From: jamal <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:29:37 -0400 (EDT)

> <smiley for dripping sarcasm badly needed>

Here we go again. Where art thou, my brother.

Dont just blame Major Contributors(tm).
Look at it from another angle:
It is just as much related to dripping sarcastic IESG directors who cant
stand the light when shone on them.
Things have changed. I like the IETF to go back to the way it was. I've
even been spotted with shorts and sandals.
Unfortunately it cant. I am not sure if Dave Clark would dare repeat
those same words given the opportunity today.
Dont stick to the same old rightenousness and still keep claim to have
Deep Experience (tm).

cheers,
jamal

---

From: "Mike O'Dell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:05:24 -0400

oh i agree!  the failure to start from working code
is the perniscious failing of most modern IETF WGs

	-mo

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:43:17 -0700

> Absolute bullshit on both quotes. Sometimes lies become truths

Surely you mean that the truth has become a lie. Perhaps because
people are no longer holding WGs to the goal of running code, but
rather pandering to pressure for some 'democratic process'. Tyranny
of the masses rarely leads to excellence.

cheers,
gja

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 13:05:20 -0700

Hello Mike,

> is the perniscious failing of most modern IETF WGs

I gather you wouldn't have much sympathy for problem
statements and requirements documents that are in process
within several working groups now.  What do you think
about, say, progress within the AAA working group,
which has already finished those phases?

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:41:39 -0500

>which has already finished those phases?

Not to speak for Mike, but how about having this kind of work take 
place in the IRTF? It sounds an awful lot like research to me. When 
they're done with that and start writing something that looks like it 
might be code someday, bring it back into the IETF.

[Every time I bring up the idea of doing something like this in IRTF 
to IETF folks who are older and crustier than I am, I get lots of 
moans and eye-rolling, but no real explanation of why this is a bad 
idea. They seem to have a nice place and lots of space; why don't we 
just move in? It seems like the IRTF might also be a nice place to 
send some of the folks with half-baked ideas to keep them out of our 
hair, though Erik would probably be less interested in that.]

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
QUALCOMM Incorporated

---

From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:05:31 -0400

> which has already finished those phases?

Any concerns about this might be mitigated by the fact
that more than one group is reverse engineering its
requirements from existing protocols.  (No, I don't
see this as a positive thing).

Melinda

---

From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:28:59 -0400

> From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>

"Tyranny of the masses" *would* be democracy, but there 
seems to be continued support for doing what people are
calling "consensus."  Nevertheless, I don't think that 
what we're doing here could be considered consensus process 
according to any reasonable definition of the term.  
Consensus really is about process rather than product, 
and it requires investment in the process from all 
participants, which we certainly do not have here.
Unilateralism, unwillingness to compromise, insults and
derogation, and widespread weenie-waving work against 
consensus pretty much by definition.  What we seem to 
be working towards instead is rough agreement - not the 
same thing as rough consensus.  I don't think consensus
is possible at the IETF, but it's interesting to 
consider whether or not we'd get better results if
participants were more open.

There's not a lot of printed material on consensus, but
Michael Sheeran's "Beyond Majority Rule" is quite good.

Melinda

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:01:17 -0500

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/1098/int.html

DEERING: Whatever happens, the Web will be kept working; it's the dominant
application. What we're seeing is people proposing new applications built on
top of HTTP, because it goes through the firewalls or it's universally
available, and, in fact, IP gets relegated to a single roll as a layer 2
technology. HTTP is the universal connectivity.

Concerning your [Postel's] comment about filling up the space, there is this
story about an experiment with an infinite number of monkeys with an
infinite number of typewriters generating the works of Shakespeare. Well,
we've done the experiment; we've deployed an infinite number of typewriters
and what they're [generating] is protocol specs.

CERF: We're getting the Shakespearean equivalent of "To be or not to be,
that is the grzzornay."

---

From: Brian Lloyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:51:27 -0700

Neither "consensus" nor "democracy" by themselves produce good work.  It is 
possible for the overwhelming majority (consensus) or bare majority 
(democracy) to choose the mediocre over the good.  At least with consensus 
a few can have a more significant effect.

So, as I see it, it is the few rather than the many, who do the good 
work.  TCP works as well as it does because of the work of handful of 
people, not the democracy of the majority or the consensus of the 
population of the IETF.

The only advantage the majority of the IETF has is that in "the olden days" 
the majority was involved in the day-to-day construction of networks and 
were capable enough to recognize really good work.  Sadly, today I don't 
believe this is true and the current work of the IETF supports this 
supposition in my own mind. (YMMV)

So, the IETF is a victim of its own success.  Many who did the original 
good work have fallen by the wayside for whatever reason.  Some are still 
here and raising their voices periodically but, sadly, many are missing and 
those who remain are absorbed by the process and not contributing new good 
work.

I miss the old IETF and would like to see something like that organization 
continue.  But most of my children have grown up and moved away too.  I 
guess life moves on, people and organizations die, and those of us left 
have to live with it.

Brian Lloyd
[email-masked]
+1.530.676.1113 - voice
+1.360.838.9669 - fax

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:26:07 +0700

> and that's neither an accident nor a bug

It is OK if a WG chair becomes the supreme commander
of any meritocracy, but not for the IESG or the IAB. 
Believing in mob consensus and running nose is fine too!

However, I still have difficulties to understand the
merit of having ".ip6.int" or ".ip6.arpa" or even
".mickey-mouse" for holding the reverse records. That 
must be a 100 % political decision with no merit at all.

regards,

-- 
Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim - VLSM-TJT - http://rms46.vlsm.org
Get there in time:mirror on the wall-Genesis:tail -f trick

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 21:46:09 -0700

Good points Brian;-)...

One of the problems facing the IETF is that it has grown a very tough 
hide (protective skin) like any good living cell does, to protect 
itself from
harmful seeming outside interferences.  It even has an immune system 
that can react to deal with (and discard) some internal 
interferences.  In short, the IETF is a living organism and it 
behaves accordingly.

Another is that IETF acts in many ways as though it is the only legitimate
user of its well founded standards development methodologies, and so it
might be seen as a living example of the well known KazzzWump! Bird, which
flies in circles of monotonic decreasing radius until...

So, may I respectfully suggest that IETF should encourage some people to go
elsewhere and use the IETF principles and methods to work on development
of new protocols that may not fit nicely inside the IETF.

There is no law I can think of that says that the only good protocols 
are those that are created whole within the IETF processes.  I can 
name some that came from outside, such as POP3, which had a bit of a 
rough go at displacing the more formally developed versions developed 
within the IETF structures;-)...

Maybe in the case of OPES, the proponents should first do the 
required research and prototype code production that tends to precede 
good IETF results.  Then,
if the results are suitable, they can bring their work into the IETF.

There should be no  negative repercussions from an IETF decision that 
some work is not yet ripe enough to occupy scarce space at IETF 
meetings.  Or from beginning work outside the IETF confines. 
Especially if the work proceeds with use of IETF WG principals, 
without commencing with the blessings of the IESG;-).

Cheers...\Stef

At 16:51 -0700 24/06/01, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>Neither "consensus" nor "democracy" by themselves produce good work. 
>It is possible for the overwhelming majority (consensus) or bare 
>majority (democracy) to choose the mediocre over the good.  At least 
>with consensus a few can have a more significant effect.
>
>work.  TCP works as well as it does because of the work of handful 
>of people, not the democracy of the majority or the consensus of the 
>population of the IETF.
>
>The only advantage the majority of the IETF has is that in "the 
>olden days" the majority was involved in the day-to-day construction 
>of networks and were capable enough to recognize really good work. 
>Sadly, today I don't believe this is true and the current work of 
>the IETF supports this supposition in my own mind. (YMMV)
>
>So, the IETF is a victim of its own success.  Many who did the 
>original good work have fallen by the wayside for whatever reason. 
>Some are still here and raising their voices periodically but, 
>sadly, many are missing and those who remain are absorbed by the 
>process and not contributing new good work.
>
>I miss the old IETF and would like to see something like that 
>organization continue.  But most of my children have grown up and 
>moved away too.  I guess life moves on, people and organizations 
>die, and those of us left have to live with it.
>
>Brian Lloyd
>[email-masked]
>+1.530.676.1113 - voice
>+1.360.838.9669 - fax

---

From: Mahadevan Iyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 22:48:44 -0700

> technology. HTTP is the universal connectivity.

For many non real-time applications, yes.   You cannot design a good telephone
or TV like service over HTTP..or TCP :)

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:35:56 -0700

Einar Stefferud wrote:
	[..]
> Another is that IETF acts in many ways as though it is
> the only legitimate user of its well founded standards
> development methodologies,

Which IETF does that? On the contrary, it appears the
biggest problem is outsiders flocking to the IETF in
the mistaken belief that creating a WG here will somehow
bless one's work with pixie dust.

cheers,
gja

---

From: "Melinda Shore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 09:17:35 -0400

> From: Brian Lloyd <[email-masked]>

> a few can have a more significant effect.

There's a lot of confusion over what "consensus" means.
It's not simply unanimity or a modified form of voting, 
but a process that allows all voices to be heard and 
enables groups to come to decisions that most accurately 
reflect the views and values of the group members.  It 
specifically tries to prevent a majority (or loud minority, 
as so often happens in the IETF) from using their weight to 
force bad decisions through.  Used properly it allows groups 
to come to better decisions than they would otherwise.  
It's slow and tedious and requires investment in the process 
from all participants, and is particularly ill-suited, I think, 
for technical work.

> people, not the democracy of the majority or the consensus of the 

It's been my experience that even in the most popular (what
a concept) working groups only a handful of people actively
participate, anyway.  The primary disadvantages, to my mind,
of the size of the body pool in working groups have been 1) 
it's often difficult to get a seat in meetings, 2) mailing 
list management becomes more time-consuming, and 3) more time 
is wasted dealing with questions from people who haven't read 
the documents or working group charters.  I don't see any of
this as particularly onerous.

It seems as if the real question here is how to handle 
controversial working group proposals.  The OPES proposal
has a fair amount of support behind it and quite a bit of
objection to it.  In a consensus-oriented decision-making
framework everybody with an opinion would work together to
find some mutually acceptable (not loved - acceptable)
accomodation, whether it's sending the work off to another
standards body or modifying the charter and having the 
work done in the IETF.  That hasn't been the ways things
have worked during my short time with the IETF - noise is
made and the IESG goes off to think about it, work directly
with interested parties, and then make a decision.  Maybe
it's not that meaningful for us to be talking about consensus
or direct voting when what we've really got is a republic.

Melinda

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:00:53 -0400

> must be a 100 % political decision with no merit at all.

Well... we *DO* need to agree on what the root of the reverse tree will
be - otherwise it's hard to write tools that do reverse lookups. ;)

The politics starts when you realize that somebody owns the spot that
you're parking the tree.

Using .mickey-mouse is bad - there's *enough* Bad Karma attached to the
whole TLD issue via ICANN and the like.

Using .ip6.int or .ip6.arpa requires that the manager(s) of .int or .arpa
agree/consent/support that usage (which they may not, for a number of
reasons).   Looking at the SOA/NS entries for .INT and .ARPA is rather
revealing.  I'm pretty sure that the current set of NS entries for .INT
is sufficient to support reverse lookups under the current level of IP6
deployment, but will require some major upgrading in the future. ;)

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:52:47 -0400

> In a consensus-oriented decision-making

For better or worse, we've never claimed to use consensus-based 
decision-making for deciding whether a working group gets created.
We do require that there be a significant show of interest for
doing that group's work, but other than that, our process leaves
those decisions to IESG and IAB.

One of the presumptions behind the choice of consensus-based
decision-making even for working groups is that the people
making the decision are technically competent.  Sometimes, the 
people proposing a new working group are unable to demonstrate
technical competence, which makes their proposals quite dubious 
indeed.  In such a case, the right thing to do is to send them 
elsewhere, but you'll never reach consensus with them about that.

Keith

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 08:22:19 -0700

>bless one's work with pixie dust.

Which of course reinforces the notion that IETF must defend itself 
from the onslaught, for good reasons due to the general lack of space 
for new WG meetings.

But, more to the point, I am referring to the general reticence of 
non-IETF groups to use the IETF methods and processes in their own 
work related to developing standards for code for use on the Internet.

However, I know of a few others that have adopted the IETF WG 
processes, and I consider this a good thing to be happening.  In 
fact, I strongly encourage it.
And even lead the charge from time to time.

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:10:35 -0700

Keith -- I beg to differ.  There are a number of other groups that 
have considered taking their work to the IETF, but decided instead to 
just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs.

They have done this with good results, and I recommend often that 
this be done by others.  One of the benefits of this approach is 
complete avoidance of what is going on here in this mailing list;-)...

So, the answer is, if you want to do it the IETF way, then just use 
the WG working rules, and take the results to the IETF when you are 
done, if the results look good enough.

The only other reason to take work to the IETF is because you might 
draw in some additional useful talents from meeting attendees, and 
something then could rub off on your work.

But otherwise, there are no particular inhibitors.  IETF even allows 
outsiders to post IETF-DRAFTS, which serve to inform the larger IETF 
community about such non-IETF work.  All this add to the over all 
value of the work being done.

So, I read this mass of IETF mail to mean that the OPES work is just 
not ready for prime time, and so they should just settle down and get 
to work on making it ready for IETF prime time, or just do the work 
and be done with it.

The thing I marvel at is the size of the fuss about the question;-)...
Surely the readers of this list will not be offended by a few 
messages announcing the work!  That would beat the pants off what we 
see here now;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:27:00 -0400

> just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs.

Indeed they have.  But that's orthogonal to the point I was making.

> done, if the results look good enough.

No, that would be sheer lunacy.  Because it's quite often the case 
that such work:

- either doesn't consider the problem from enough different points 
  of view, or 

- suffers from a lack of technical competence, or

- was actually developed in a (semi-)closed environment in order 
  to favor certain stakeholders over others

It's one thing to say that other groups would do well to use certain 
parts of the IETF process, quite another to say that IETF should 
endorse the work of other groups.

Keith

---

From: Gordon Cook <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:17:31 -0400

>stef:> Keith -- I beg to differ.  There are a number of other groups that
>stef:> So, the answer is, if you want to do it the IETF way, then just use

COOK:  good lord keith....  Surely stef's whole point is that the 
Area Directors, IESG, and IAB need only accept work that WAS good 
enough from THEIR own point of view.

it sounds like you are saying that it simply is not possible to 
construct anything that could even merit IETF review unless you did 
the construction from scratch within all the channels of the IETF?
If so it sounds like you are determined to keep the views of the 
current AD's, IESG and IAB as a gate through which ALL ideas must 
pass and are saying that it is flat out impossible for anyone to 
develop working code that could pass the scrutiny test.  How do you 
know until, you see it?

sounds to me like doctrinaire rigidity.

-- 
****************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [email-masked]   Index to 9 years
  of the COOK  Report at http://cookreport.com         From now 
through Sept 30th
half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL 
back issues.
Site license $575 and all back  issues $300.  http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml
****************************************************************

---

From: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:28:37 -0700

> And even lead the charge from time to time.

stef - historically, the ietf process worked because it was well-suited to
the competence of the personalities involved. adopting ietf-like processes
may be necessary, but it isn't sufficient, unless, of course, adopting
ietf-like processes introduces a darwinian selection for the historical
ietf-like personalities. ymmv.

mo and lloyd have made several cogent arguments explaining the current
disconnect, viz. the opes stuff. of course, opes isn't to blame, per se,
this is just the latest instance of a mismatch of expectations. perhaps, as
noted earlier, the turning point was when wg's were chartered to do
requirements documents instead of protocol documents. perhaps the problem is
even earlier...

/mtr

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:30:51 -0400

> the construction from scratch within all the channels of the IETF?

No, I'm only saying that it's wrong to encourage people to do their
work independently of IETF if they want/expect IETF to endorse it.

When other groups do standards work, that work should bear the name
of the group that did the work.  IETF's name should not be used to
lend credibility to other groups.

> develop working code that could pass the scrutiny test.  

Not at all.  I'm just saying that we shouldn't call it IETF work when
it's done elsewhere.

Keith

---

From: Brian Lloyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:01:03 -0700

At 10:27 AM 6/25/2001, you wrote:
>No, that would be sheer lunacy.

Hmmm.  Seems to me that Stef speaks sense.

>Because it's quite often the case that such work:
>

Then they "request for comment" and get feedback from others interested in 
the same problem.  Isn't that how all this got started?

>- suffers from a lack of technical competence, or

Assuming automatically that someone from outside the IETF is incompetent is 
just as arrogant as assuming that someone inside the IETF is competent. 
Even the work inside the IETF sometimes suffers from a lack of technical 
competence.  Cluefulness is not a prerequisite for attending an IETF 
meeting or attempting to participate in a WG.  No, the playing field is 
pretty level here.  We put up with cluelessness at the IETF because there 
is no metric for cluefulness that we can engage ahead of time.  You bring 
in the whole stalk of wheat and separate the wheat from the chaff in the 
threshing process.  I see entirely too little threshing going on in the 
IETF these days.  I think we worry to much that people will get their 
little feelers hurt.

>   to favor certain stakeholders over others

That does not preclude the work from containing the seeds of good 
ideas.  Good ideas come from individuals, not from committees or 
organizations.  The IETF doesn't have a lock on good ideas.  If a solution 
applies to a subset of a problem it may have application to the larger 
problem and/or it may trigger something in someone else's mind to come up 
with the general solution.  Developing it within the committee doesn't 
guarantee anything.

>endorse the work of other groups.

The IETF should endorse good work no matter where it comes from.  The 
"protocol by WG committee" approach espoused by the current IETF does not 
always produce good work.  It is the good ideas of a few which get adopted 
by the committee that makes a good protocol.

<sigh>  Where is Bill Simpson saying, "You're wrong," (in that abrasive and 
melodious voice of his) and the strong, clueful WG chaircritter saying, 
"Bill's right, you don't know what you are talking about so sit down and 
shut up."  The IETF could use some more of that again.

Yeah, Mo, a meritocracy, and people with merit can come from anywhere.

So let 'em build their protocol, whatever it is, and bring it to the 
IETF.  The problems with a really bad protocol can be extremely educational 
and entertaining.  The elegance of a really good protocol can be extremely 
educational and entertaining.  I don't see how we can lose.

Brian Lloyd
[email-masked]
+1.530.676.1113 - voice
+1.360.838.9669 - fax

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:30:49 -0400

> Hmmm.  Seems to me that Stef speaks sense.

No, because what Stef advocated would create an unrealistic expectation
that an external group's work would be published and/or endorsed by IETF.

It's not that IETF cannot possibly endorse such work, it's that the vast
majority of work done under those conditions does not merit an IETF 
endorsement, and encouraging other groups to operate in this manner 
would require that IETF spend valuable time and energy trying to
review this work.  This would distract IETF from more fruitful activities.

Other groups are quite free to develop their own reputations and to publish 
their own work using their own mechanisms.  For IETF to be compelled to lend 
its reputation to other groups' work, or its energies reviewing arbitrary
work from other groups, really is sheer lunacy.

> the same problem.  

They're quite free to do so without involving IETF.

> just as arrogant as assuming that someone inside the IETF is competent.

Take a stress pill and carefully reread what I wrote.    I didn't say that
work outside the IETF inherently suffered from a lack of competence,
I said that the majority of work submitted from outside groups for IETF 
approval tends to suffer from one or more of several common problems, one of
which is a lack of competence.  The statements are quite different.

There are other competent groups out there, but they're not routinely asking 
IETF to approve work which they've previously done in isolation to IETF.

To put it another way, other groups that have established their own competence 
don't need to ask IETF to lend its name to their work.

> competence.  

True enough.  But we accept responsibility for our own incompetence.
We're not trying to get other groups to endorse it.

> ideas.  

No, but it often does preclude it from being adopted by IETF without major
changes.  If the external group's purpose was to prototype and demonstrate
proof-of-concept, and it's willing to allow significant changes before 
standardization and deployment, the fact that the work was done prior
to bringing it to IETF can be a good thing.  OTOH if the external group
was trying to standardize a protocol and promote deployment of that protocol,
doing the work elsewhere and trying to fix it in IETF is usually a huge mess.

> The IETF should endorse good work no matter where it comes from.  

The IETF exists to do work, not to endorse work that came from elsewhere.  
Expecting the IETF to pass any judgement on work done elsewhere detracts 
from IETF's purpose and amounts to a denial-of-service attack on IETF.

> The "protocol by WG committee" approach espoused by the current IETF does not

I agree.  But if the folks develop those ideas in too much isolation
(as is often the case) it's not likely to be a good protocol.

> educational and entertaining.  I don't see how we can lose.

Think of it this way:

We'll learn something useful from almost every good protocol we review, but
we'll only learn something useful from the first two or three bad protocols
we review.  After that it's a complete waste of time.  It's not even entertaining.

And if we encourage folks to design protocols outside of IETF and then 
submit them, most of those submissions will be bad.  Because it's far easier to 
design a bad protocol than a good one, and because the people with sufficient clues 
to design a good protocol (though they do exist outside of IETF) are far rarer 
than the people capable of designing a bad one.

Keith

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:56:05 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>

I'm just saying that we shouldn't call it IETF work when
> it's done elsewhere.
------

What happens if people in the IETF take work from "elsewhere",
rewrite it, call it their own, and claim it is "IETF work" ??

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12213.html

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:06:10 -0400

> perhaps, as noted earlier, the turning point was when wg's were 
> chartered to do requirements documents instead of protocol 
> documents. perhaps the problem is even earlier...

in my experience, one reason that a WG is chartered to do only a requirements 
document (there are others *) is that the WG appears to lack basic competence, 
but there isn't the political will to entirely block creation of the group.
so the group is allowed to do a requirements document in the hope that doing so
will give the group more clue.  sometimes it even works, but quite often the
group ends up creating an immensely complex mess.

so the chartering of groups to do requirements documents may be a symptom
of the problem rather than the problem itself.  but it probably does correleate
in time with the "turning point".

Keith

* another reason is that the group's work needs to satisfy such a diverse set of
interests that the only way to get everyone on the same page is for the group
to jointly write such a document.

p.s. I wish we'd stop calling them requirements documents, because we tend
to treat them as if they were carved in stone rather than merely an exercise
in getting everyone to agree on a problem definition.  "design goals" is much better.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:20:26 +0100 (BST)

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Einar Stefferud wrote:

> this be done by others. 

which other groups have done so successfully, then?

> value of the work being done.

IETF allows _anyone_ to post an internet draft.

L.

everyone's an outsider.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:35:51 -0700

Brian Lloyd wrote:
	[..]
> The
> always produce good work.

The concept of a Working Group Committee is revealing.

gja

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:55:28 -0500

Does the IETF use the protocols it designs ?

Do these incompetent Working Groups you refer to use IPv6 ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Moore" <[email-masked]>
To: "Marshall T. Rose" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "Einar Stefferud" <[email-masked]>; "Marshall Rose"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:07:16 -0700

Well;-)...  A really good discussion has occurred;-)...

Gordon and Brian got it right in terms of my intentions.

Let me clarify.

Keith's fear of IESG being besieged with requests for IETF adoption 
of any work done outside the IETF without a WG Review is bogus as 
long as all work to be adopted must go through THE IETF WG process 
before it gets to the IESG.

But, to suggest that it must never have been worked on elsewhere, if 
you want the IETF to bless it, is a perfect example of my concern 
about the IETF Skin (i.e., Protective Membrane)  getting in the way 
of progress.

All you are really arguing about is whether the OPES BOF GROUP can 
have meeting space at the IETF meeting, not whether or not they can 
work on it elsewhere and bring the work forward when it is more fully 
baked.

Of course they can work on it anywhere they want, and time that they want.
But, the attitude displayed here clearly says that one should

		"do it all inside the IETF!"

Now, if this quote is not what Keith and others mean to convey,
now is the time to correct the misinterpretations I and others are getting...

Of course, this notion of "do it all here" carries with it the right 
and ability of the IETF to control and regulate what is even 
discussed in other circles.
I am certain that this is an unintended consequence of the passage of 
time and circumstances, and that the result is clearly not desired. 
But there it is!

I agree that the points of confusion in this thread are subtle, and 
perhaps easily missed, but I have been observing the effects of the 
IETF skin (actually a pretty tough hide!) for many years now, going 
back to before the Boston Tea Party was held at the MIT IETF in 1992, 
and what I am seeing is a return to the pre-Tea Party days, when IETF 
had gravitated to a top-down control scheme, with a toughening hide.

It is interesting how such "skin" is mostly invisible to people 
inside organizations.  Of course, it is because the hide is 
protecting them from being bothered by or distracted by what is being 
blocked.

And, in the end, lots of people have come to see the IETF as being 
aloof or even hostile to many aspects of the internet.  I would name 
some, but I do not want to derail this discussion into an open 
discussion of those areas when it is the higher meta level problem 
that has surfaced here.

My hope is that all the smoke you are seeing here is a sign of a real 
fire that needs to be addressed.  My specific interests have no place 
in this discussion.

Cheers...\Stef

PS:  This is not the only case of organizational skin getting in the way of
      desired progress!  I see it in many volunteer groups that desperately
      want others to join, but which just cannot see how their skin is
      blocking the entrances...\s

At 12:01 -0700 25/06/01, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>Then they "request for comment" and get feedback from others 
>interested in the same problem.  Isn't that how all this got started?
>
>Assuming automatically that someone from outside the IETF is 
>incompetent is just as arrogant as assuming that someone inside the 
>IETF is competent. Even the work inside the IETF sometimes suffers 
>from a lack of technical competence.  Cluefulness is not a 
>prerequisite for attending an IETF meeting or attempting to 
>participate in a WG.  No, the playing field is pretty level here. 
>We put up with cluelessness at the IETF because there is no metric 
>for cluefulness that we can engage ahead of time.  You bring in the 
>whole stalk of wheat and separate the wheat from the chaff in the 
>threshing process.  I see entirely too little threshing going on in 
>the IETF these days.  I think we worry to much that people will get 
>their little feelers hurt.
>
>organizations.  The IETF doesn't have a lock on good ideas.  If a 
>solution applies to a subset of a problem it may have application to 
>the larger problem and/or it may trigger something in someone else's 
>mind to come up with the general solution.  Developing it within the 
>committee doesn't guarantee anything.
>
>The "protocol by WG committee" approach espoused by the current IETF 
>does not always produce good work.  It is the good ideas of a few 
>which get adopted by the committee that makes a good protocol.
>
><sigh>  Where is Bill Simpson saying, "You're wrong," (in that 
>abrasive and melodious voice of his) and the strong, clueful WG 
>chaircritter saying, "Bill's right, you don't know what you are 
>talking about so sit down and shut up."  The IETF could use some 
>more of that again.
>
>IETF.  The problems with a really bad protocol can be extremely 
>educational and entertaining.  The elegance of a really good 
>protocol can be extremely educational and entertaining.  I don't see 
>how we can lose.
>
>
>Brian Lloyd
>[email-masked]
>+1.530.676.1113 - voice
>+1.360.838.9669 - fax

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 19:33:32 -0400

> before it gets to the IESG.

the conern isn't just about IESG resources, it's about IETF as a whole 
becoming even more bogged down than it already is by trying to fix 
mistakes made by people who were so lacking in clue that they couldn't 
get a WG created in the first place - so they decided to try and bypass 
the IETF process and get IETF to retroactively adopt their work later.

it's far easier to fix a mistake just after you make it than it is if
you invest a few more man-years in that same direction. 

> you want the IETF to bless it, 

no, that's not what I said.  I said that it's a bad idea to encourage
people to take their work elsewhere if they want IETF to bless it.

in fact IETF has at least occasionally taken on work started elsewhere,
sometimes with good results.   it's not that it can't be done, but it's
not a blanket strategy that should be encouraged, as you seemed to imply.

> have meeting space at the IETF meeting, 

you're not even in the same solar system.

first, this discussion isn't just about OPES.

second, WGs take a LOT more resources than meeting space.  (though meeting 
space is indeed precious) they take the time of ADs who monitor the groups,
and chairs and participants who try to make sense of what is going on.
they divert energy from these individuals who might otherwise be working
on other (perhaps more useful) things.  they take resources from the 
secretariat.  and they take energy from folks within and without IETF who 
assume that the WG is somehow indicative of IETF direction in that subject area,
and who waste their energies trying to understand that WG's work and reconcile
it with sanity.

third, "problem" WGs - that can't figure out how to work and play well with
the rest of IETF - take FAR more than their share of resources.  get rid
of a few problem WGs and the organization as a whole becomes far more 
effective.

> not whether or not they can 

of course people can do work elsewhere and bring it forward when it
is more fully baked.  but the best time to bring the work forward is
not when it is fully baked, but when it's still easy to change the
recipe.  and people who can't describe what they're trying to cook
in the first place probably aren't going to be able to convince IETF
to eat what they've cooked even after they claim that it's done.

> 		"do it all inside the IETF!"

Nope.  The attitude is: if you can't make a good problem definition and
a good case for working on it, you need to go off somewhere and do more 
work on *that* - NOT on the protocol design.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of Stef's message, except to say
that if you see any smoke here - it's coming from what he's smoking.

Keith

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 16:34:39 -0700

I think that the meta issues under discussion here will not be helped 
by  diverting discussion to IETF evaluation of my specific examples.
The work often involves some kind of controversial issues, which would
take us way off target.

See below...

>which other groups have done so successfully, then?

I will only identify these others in private messages, because I do 
not want this discussion thread to turn into a feeding frenzy over 
the the specific work that was done.  Lets stick to the general meta 
issues.

And, of course, some of them have not turned into adoptable results, 
which must be expected and not therefore used to fault the concept of 
using IETF tools outside the IETF, and perhaps bringing work to the 
IETF after beginning elsewhere.  Failing to produce something useful 
in the IETF sense without bothering the IETF is not harmful to the 
IETF, and not a proper issue in this discussion.

>IETF allows _anyone_ to post an internet draft.

Certainly, and I loudly applaud this fact.

The only inconvenience I find with it is that the DRAFT publication 
process stops dead in advance of IETF meetings, which is unfortunate 
for anyone outside IETF who has a need to publish a draft during such 
times of "power outage".

It would really be nice if DRATS that are declared to not be related 
to the meeting could still be published without such interruptions. 
This is both a suggestion and a request, but not a demand.  I do not 
know all the aspects of this practice.  but, it is a part of the 
"skin" that encloses the IETF and protects it from outside influences.

>everyone's an outsider.

But some are more outsider than others;-)...  Maybe lots more;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 20:48:34 -0400

It would be A Public Service if someone would setup
a separate mailing list elsewhere for this thread so that
we could return the IETF list to a normal mode.

	Perhaps the new list could be named "ietf-politics",
just to make the list's topics clear to all.

---

From: "Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 09:16:29 +0700

> be - otherwise it's hard to write tools that do reverse lookups. ;)

Fine, I have no problem with that statement.

> whole TLD issue via ICANN and the like.

Sure, I also understand that there are many intercoursing
manureholes around there (is this term polite enough :-) ?
 
> deployment, but will require some major upgrading in the future. ;)

Therefore, I believe that meritocracy is fine at a WG
level. Unfortunately, it is not at the upper level like
IESG and IAB. Worse, requiring an ICANN BoD candidate
be highly technical skilled sounds like requiring Lou Gestner
(IBM, an ex cookie manager, http://www.ibm.com/lvg/ ) 
to understand the inner beauty of an IBM 360/91 pipeline 
processor.

Last, perhaps long time IETF participants (or whatever
the political term is), should take a sabbatical term: life 
is not just reading emails (especially on weekends)! Visiting 
South Africa is a good idea, to study on how a minority gave 
up its long time domination.

regards,

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 21:15:49 -0500

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00136.html

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:37:45 -0400

> IETF these days.  I think we worry to much that people will get their 

Send them my way.  I'm renowned for my ability to tell almost anybody,
in excruciating detail, exactly why their idea is dumber than a box
of rocks. ;)

> educational and entertaining.  I don't see how we can lose.

Actually, a Really Bad Protocol is usually dreadfully excruciatingly
painful, unless somebody performs an MST on it.  For those not
familiar with it, see http://www.scifi.com/mst3000/ for the TV show,
or http://brie.bmsc.washington.edu/people/merritt/books/Eye_of_Argon.html
for an example of the concept.

Now, maybe if we had more protocol reviews like that... ;)

/Valdis

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:09:02 -0500

http://www.trekcollective.com/borg.html

The IETF Sounds Like "The B.ORG"

http://www.trekcollective.com/borg.html
"The Borg are a species of half organic, half cybernetic organisms whose
sole purpose is to become perfect, and to offer others that perfection.
Offer is really the wrong word to use when referring to the Borg. They treat
all other races as inferior to theirs, and therefore assimilate, to use
their term, all species into their "Collective", believing that they are
giving that species what it really wants."

Does the IETF only develop perfect protocols ?

Is IPv6 perfect ?

Are -B.ORG Domain Names used by IETF Members ?

Is .ORG controlled by the ICANN BORG ?

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e

----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: "Brian Lloyd" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

> > IETF.  The problems with a really bad protocol can be extremely
educational

---

From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:04:29 -0500

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "RJ Atkinson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

> just to make the list's topics clear to all.

ftp://ftp.iab.org/in-notes/IAB/IABmins/IABmins.010508
12. IAB role/responsibilities

Revisiting our role -- we're not an IESG oversight committee; we're
not a politics body (no, really).  

Need to do architecture.  Need to reach across layers/boundaries
(which is sometimes hard; goes against grain).  Perhaps the IAB
could be the provoker of activities like writing up the APPS 
architecture, getting cross-pollination to happen.

Harald:  what is the picture that makes the pieces of architecture
we're asked to develop hang together?

Discussion has been interesting.  Should follow-up on it; perhaps
as an in-person discussion?  Ran suggests we could talk about
it in London, with a certain amount of pre-planning.  London is
a long time off, so we'll attempt to pursue on e-mail, as well.

----------

Jim Fleming
http://www.unir.com
Mars 128n 128e

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 23:46:29 -0700

Hi Keith and all --

I have had my say, and will now exit the set,
so you can return to your preferred programs;-)...

I am an IETF outsider now by unilateral personal choice,
but I still truly love the basic principles that drove
the Internet while I was a directly engaged participant.

And I am doing what I can to employ those beloved IETF
principles in places more accepting of them, and of me.

Stay tuned;-)... News at 11;00;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

PS:  It was good to renew some old acquaintances
      in this thread, and I hope we don't have to
      wait another 5 years to connectg again;-)...

Cheers...\Stef

>At 19:33 -0400 25/06/01, Keith Moore wrote:

<SNIP>... <SNIP>... <SNIP>... <SNIP>... <SNIP>... <SNIP>... <SNIP>