Subject: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...

From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:33:05 -0800

I generally agree with many of the observations about what the IETF process should probably be. 

I also observe that there is a process for individual submissions, which Mark and I have scrupulously followed. We ask that the IETF community consider our work on its merits, not just on its pedigree (or lack thereof). It is right to be conservative about what becomes a BCP, but not to the point of excluding good work, and we feel that our work is not a proprietary submission seeking to subvert the standards process. In fact we feel that we've been very considerate and open in the development of this draft in the language tagging community and continue to be open to comments and criticism, no matter the source.

In this case we have developed an I-D which would like to obsolete an existing BCP which itself obsoletes a BCP. The I-D was developed using the exact same process, procedures, small-"c" community, and so forth that its predecessors used. I will not argue the subjective issues of whether the community working on this was large enough or the right one nor the procedural issue of whether enough notice was given to others. After that work has progressed for nearly a year and a half, though, we find ourselves in a Last Call. Certainly those individuals and groups not involved in the cut-and-thrust of this draft's development are entitled to an opportunity to consider and comment on our choices, including the requirements we chose to address and the suitability and compatibility of our solution. 

Procedural questions about how this should have happened are interesting and important to the IETF at large, but given the specific details of our draft's development, wouldn't it be responsible to separate the two discussions and focus on the draft at hand? I feel that the technical comments about our draft to date have mostly been related to compatibility with specific existing protocols or implementations. I feel that we have suitable ways to address these concerns (either via persuasion or via modifications to the draft). Neither Mark nor I are wild-eyed zealots or starry-eyed purists: we are willing to make adjustments and modifications that make sense in order to achieve the necessary consensus or revise or abandon aspects of the document that raise valid issues.

I would like the community at large to consider this specific I-D--both the requirements for it and the technical merits of our solution--attempt to understand our choices and provide (objective) feedback that will allow us to achieve consensus for or against it (or a slight revision thereof). We are trying to work within the confines of the IETF's process to achieve what we see as the necessary progress on this issue. 

So.... what do we need to do to address (a) concerns about requirements for the draft and (b) concerns about technical objections?

If we use the ietf-languages list to discuss the these sets of issues, then perhaps we can demonstrate the maturity of the draft and progress to BCP. 

Best Regards,

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Director, Globalization Architecture
http://www.webMethods.com

Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group
http://www.w3.org/International

Internationalization is an architecture. 
It is not a feature.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:42:55 -0700 (MST)

> From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <[email-masked]>

>           .... In fact we feel that we've been very considerate
> and open in the development of this draft in the language tagging
> community and continue to be open to comments and criticism, no
> matter the source.

Based on what I have seen in this mailing list, I disagree.  

> I would like the community at large to consider this specific
> I-D--both the requirements for it and the technical merits of our
> solution--attempt to understand our choices and provide (objective)
> feedback that will allow us to achieve consensus for or against it
> (or a slight revision thereof). We are trying to work within the
> confines of the IETF's process to achieve what we see as the necessary
> progress on this issue.

If the advocates for this I-D were really trying to follow the IETF's
processes, they would have taken one of the suggestions for the next
step and temporarily (or permanently) retired from the field.  It is
clear that there is no consensus to advance this document.  Even its
authors have admitted that by talking about a new version.

As has been said repeatedly, a new version would require a new Last
Call.  Last Calls are on documents, not promises to produce a new
document that might address objections to the current document.  Long
time spent in IETF processes is not a reason to ignore the clear answer
from the IETF processes of "No Consensus," even when the long time
actually is spent in the IETF processes.  The IETF process involves
official IETF Working Groups and official IETF WG mailing lists.  Time
spent in an unrelated mailing list is not part of IETF standards process
any more then the time spent by an Informational RFC author thinking
about things is part of the IETF standards process.

Besides, isn't the Last Call officially over?  Isn't the topic of the
language tags BCP closed, dead, kaput, finished, and done until the
IESG and the individual submitters of the document choose the next step?

I can't see any significance for Mr. Phillips comment except as yet
more evidence that the default answer for individual submissions
must be "ABSOLUTE NO!"  He is basically saying "You must publish our
BCP because we followed all of the steps as we understood them and the
default result of that is surely to publish."

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:39:16 -0500

>>>>> "Vernon" == Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]> writes:

    Vernon> If the advocates for this I-D were really trying to follow
    Vernon> the IETF's processes, they would have taken one of the
    Vernon> suggestions for the next step and temporarily (or
    Vernon> permanently) retired from the field.  It is clear that
    Vernon> there is no consensus to advance this document.  Even its
    Vernon> authors have admitted that by talking about a new version.

No, currently this draft is in Ted's hands.  It makes no sense for
people to withdraw drafts or to make any hasty decisions at all.  In a
situation where you get a lot of last call comments it is best for the
pinvolved parties to get together and decide what to do next.  Correct
action is more important than prompt action.

Many people suggested ways of moving forward.  Deciding which of these
is best will require some time.  The process will work much better if
the authors help make this decision than if the unilaterally withdraw
their draft or do something like that.

--Sam

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:09:35 -0700 (MST)

> From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>

> people to withdraw drafts or to make any hasty decisions at all.  

That's fine, but does suggest some questions:

 - Is the Last Call over?

 - If so, was its result "no supporting consensus"?

 - If the result was "no supporting consensus", will the current document
     nevertheless be published as a BCP?

 - If the result was "no supporting consensus", will a revision of
    the document be published as a BCP without a new Last Call?

Last week I saw a comment that seemed to answer first question with Yes.
If the answers to the other questions are not Yes, No, and No, then
as others have said, the IETF has far more serious process problems
than how to account for the expenses of the to be hired help. 
If Last Calls are meaningless exercises in noise, then the honest
thing to do is shut down this mailing list or redirect it to the
old TCP-IP list that some time ago became the comp.protocols.tcp-ip
netnews hierarchy.
If outside groups can publish IETF BCPs without the let, leave, or
hindrance of the IETF, then the honest thing to do is to get rid
of all of that tiresome WG stuff.
The IETF meetings could continue, but as part of NetWorld+Interop.

On the other hand, if the answers are Yes, Yes, No, and No, then
contrary to the other person's request, there is no good reason to
talk about the language tags document here and now. 

That would sound like a decision to me, but I'm not sure I'd call
it hasty even as committee clocks count time.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:55:22 -0500

>> From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]> No, currently this
    >> draft is in Ted's hands.  It makes no sense for people to
    >> withdraw drafts or to make any hasty decisions at all.

    Vernon> That's fine, but does suggest some questions:

    Vernon>  - Is the Last Call over?

The answer to this question is clearly yes.  You can see this for
yourself in the ID tracker.  What this means is a bit unclear.  If
someone brought up a new comment that pointed out a new critical
defect in the specification, the IESG would almost certainly consider
the comment even though it was received after the last call period.
However it is probably not useful to continue existing discussions of
the draft.

    Vernon>  - If so, was its result "no supporting consensus"?
That's hard to answer or put another way, things don't quite work in
such a way that that question has an easy answer.

Procedurally speaking the responsible AD (Ted in this case) decides
what to do next.  He can ask for revisions; he can talk to the
authors; he can try to create a working group; he can tell the authors
he will not sponsor the draft; he can issue a ballot and put the draft
on the IESG agenda.  Those options are intended to be a fairly
exaustive list of what an AD could do after any last call and are not
intended to express any opinion about the current document.

So, at some level you will just have to wait to learn Ted's opinion of
the situation; the rest of us are also waiting for the same thing.

Note that there are procedural safeguards.  If an AD brings a document
to the IESG that is not ready, other IESG members can object.  If the
IESG approves a document that is not ready, the community can appeal
the decision.  If an AD proposes a new working group, the community,
IAB and IESG get to review the proposed working group.  I hope this
helps you understand the process.

--Sam

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 21:08:34 -0500

--On Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 17:55 -0500 Sam Hartman
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Procedurally speaking the responsible AD (Ted in this case)
> decides what to do next.  He can ask for revisions; he can
> talk to the authors; he can try to create a working group; he
> can tell the authors he will not sponsor the draft; he can
> issue a ballot and put the draft on the IESG agenda.  Those
> options are intended to be a fairly exaustive list of what an
> AD could do after any last call and are not intended to
> express any opinion about the current document.
> 
> So, at some level you will just have to wait to learn Ted's
> opinion of the situation; the rest of us are also waiting for
> the same thing.
> 
> Note that there are procedural safeguards.  If an AD brings a
> document to the IESG that is not ready, other IESG members can
> object.  If the IESG approves a document that is not ready,
> the community can appeal the decision.  If an AD proposes a
> new working group, the community, IAB and IESG get to review
> the proposed working group.  I hope this helps you understand
> the process.

Sam, let me add one or two possibilities to your very helpful
description and list of safeguards above and to Ted's shorter
status summary.  If the AD decides he or she (like you, I'm
trying to be quite generic) won't sponsor the thing, the authors
can go AD-shopping and try to convince someone else to pick it
up.  I wouldn't normally recommend that, if only because I'd
assume that the relevant AD would have asked if anyone else
wanted it and tried to do a handoff if that was appropriate, but
the procedures clearly permit it.  And, if the AD or IESG decide
that the document isn't ready, the authors could try to organize
a WG as an alternative to trying to revise the document among
themselves and as a means of completely separating out the
"community support for doing something" issue from the specific
proposals of the document.

    john