Subject: Re: More guidance and directions for new drafts/comers (was Re: When the IETF can discuss drafts seriously?

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:56:53 +0200

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 7:53 PM, John C Klensin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> --On Saturday, February 10, 2018 05:44 -0500 Keith Moore
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> >> I agree that editors need to listen and reply, but also the
> >> WG chair MUST follow up with editor to make sure they are
> >> replying to feedback. Also the ADs MUST follow up with IETF
> >> LC comments and they should be involved. I think we should
> >> look at Acee as a great WG chair, and there are many other,
> >> we may need to reward great WG chair to encourage guidance
> >> and discussions.
> >
> > You are talking about something different here than what I was
> > talking about.   But I emphatically disagree with your MUST
> > assertion.   I do not believe that chairs and ADs have a duty
> > to follow up individually on every LC comment.   LC comments
> > that are relevant should be carefully considered, of course.
> > But just because a comment is made in response to LC does not
> > mean it has sufficient merit to warrant a reply.   There is a
> > reason IETF requires rough consensus rather than complete
> > consensus.
>

AB>  IMHO, the IESG not-replying/not-ack to community's
reply-to-iesg-request means not considering, and replying means
considering. I think the ietf procedure says that iesg should consider
community reviews.

>
> Keith,
>
> Speaking generally (with no information about this particular
> case at all), there is at least one more reason, one that I
> consider very important.  In general there are two ways to get
> to a consensus technical standard (rough or otherwise).  One is
> to try to incorporate every idea, or even most ideas, and
> reflect every comment.  The other is to try to end up with a
> single, coherent, specification with a minimum of options.

AB> I don't think there is only two approaches or ways, I prefer the WG way
that follows IETF procedures and Chairs do their job to help making
productive discussions per WG.

>  The
> first approach tends to create complex standards, sometimes with
> internal inconsistencies, and often a need for profiling, but
> often results in everyone who contributed to its development
> feeling as if they got something.

AB>  I  say sometimes complex-standards and not often, it depends on our
chair's experience or AD's experience per WG (experience in terms of
guidance of engineers and ideas and discussions). I recommend IETF does
often training to our WG chairs. We need in all ietf complex and simple and
mix specifications, it depend on the technical requirements not WG
consensus requirement.

> Of the two, the second is
> more likely to produce something that can actually be
> implemented and deployed even if the approach runs the risk of
> failing entirely.
>

IMHO, Not often/more-likely implemented, but usually depends on the authors
experience or companies experience that are proposing such standard.

>
> The IETF, as you know and I hope Abdussalam understands by now,
> has historically favored the second approach and, IMO at least,
> has often come to regret it when we slip over into the first.
>

I think IETF has not favoured any of the two, where was that
announced/written, I think IETF left that to the WG experiences,
discussions and consensus.

IETF is all about experiences and practices, we need to guide to that but
not let our authors or editors or companies guide to other favors.

To paraphrase a now-ancient rant, the sides of the information
> superhighway are littered with the corpses of specifications
> developed using the first approach, largely because technical
> reality tends to get lose in the process of compromise to get a
> semblance of consensus.
>

We need guidance in our information superhighways by WG chairs, with
guidance to get a semblance of consensus without losing technical
discussions/messages, the complete technical and integration concerns. Some
authors or editors need reminder from the WG chair to reply to
reviews/messages or participants per adopted-ietf-wg-draft per
ietf-wg-discussion-list.

>
> Taking that second approach of trying to produce a focused
> standard with few options and no features added just to get
> agreement requires that WGs, and WG Chairs in particular, be
> given considerable discretion to evaluate, not just rough
> consensus, but which way the wind is blowing.  That discretion
> and authority can be abused, but the IETF's main protection
> mechanism is appeals, not specific rules about procedures to be
> followed.

IMHO, it will look as rules to who does not know the procedure, but who
gets use to it, it looks like guidance or IETF participation.

IMHO, we need both procedures and appeals approach at events of abuse, or
actually our IETF procedures includes the appeals process, so we only need
to follow procedures then. Often participants don't appeal, it does not
look good to appeal, so our WG chair should guide for no abuses.
Furthermore, IMHO, we don't specify procedures to be followed, we follow
procedures, or we get guided in a nice and expert way so we feel that there
is a friendly environment of production.

And it is important the people remember that the main
> purpose of IETF's appeals mechanism is not finding of fault but
> being sure adequate consideration occurs when someone says "wait
> a minute, that may need rethinking or more evaluation".
>
>
I agree all need to remember that. However, I may remember better when my
WG chair reminds the WG when some forget or when needed. Furthermore, our
IESG should remember to consider comments when ietf community-review
occurs, it will when the ietf chair reminds it.

best regards
AB

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 18:49:13 +0200

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:44 PM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>
> On Feb 10, 2018, at 4:18 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> For example the below messages are for an adopted work (or draft WG LC)
> but no replies/guidance within the discussion list, why is that?
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg10338.html
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg10316.html
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg10339.html
>
>
> I have no idea.  I'm not going to comment on the specific (lack of)
> actions of a WG in which I was not participating.
>
>
> my reply below,
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 1:43 PM, Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
>> IETF does try to be open to new ideas.  But people bring new ideas to
>> IETF all the time, and statistically speaking, most of those new ideas are
>> bad ideas because they are coming from people without enough exposure to
>> enough  experience that would let them realize that they are bad ideas.
>> So experienced IETF participants tend to reject bad or dubious ideas in
>> ways that may seem impolite or rude.   This is (mostly) not because they
>> are rude people overall, it is simply because there are so many bad ideas
>> presented here, as a consequence of IETF's openness.
>>
>> The people who succeed in getting IETF to adopt their ideas are those who
>> are willing to listen to feedback, take it seriously, understand its
>> relevance, and adapt their ideas in light of the feedback.   People who
>> expect to be taken seriously without being willing to do those things tend
>> to not succeed here.
>>
>
> I agree that editors need to listen and reply, but also the WG chair MUST
> follow up with editor to make sure they are replying to feedback. Also the
> ADs MUST follow up with IETF LC comments and they should be involved. I
> think we should look at Acee as a great WG chair, and there are many other,
> we may need to reward great WG chair to encourage guidance and discussions.
>
>
> You are talking about something different here than what I was talking
> about.   But I emphatically disagree with your MUST assertion.   I do not
> believe that chairs and ADs have a duty to follow up individually on every
> LC comment.   LC comments that are relevant should be carefully considered,
> of course.  But just because a comment is made in response to LC does not
> mean it has sufficient merit to warrant a reply.   There is a reason IETF
> requires rough consensus rather than complete consensus.
>
>
>
>> Even good ideas need refinement, and IETF makes decisions by rough
>> consensus.   Someone who isn't willing to listen to feedback will have a
>> difficult time building consensus.   And even when a relatively good idea
>> is presented, community members are less likely to try to help people
>> refine their ideas, if those people seem unwilling to accept constructive
>> feedback and consider compromises.
>>
>
> I agree, also our managers (ADs and WG chairs) need to follow with that,
> and if that is not done I think they should do it. However, WG chair needs
> to see good idea and should find a way to use it and to make the WG work
> together, because some WG may be controlled by few people.
>
>
> Yes some WG can be controlled by a few people (I've seen it happen).   But
> a WG chair should not insist that all ideas be incorporated, not even all
> good ideas.  This can be inappropriate meddling on the chair's part, and
> there's such a thing as trying to accommodate too many good ideas.
>
>
>> Also: IETF makes it relatively easy to post an internet-draft.   But
>> posting an internet-draft doesn't do anything but make the draft available
>> for download and send out an announcement to a mailing list.   It doesn't
>> schedule any discussion on the draft, it doesn't refer the draft to any
>> working group, and it doesn't mean that anybody will take it seriously or
>> even read it - whether it's good or not.
>>
>
> I discuss adopted drafts and still some times don't get reply or any
> serious reaction, why is that? I some times think because I am from Africa
> but I don't believe that or trying no to beleive.
>
>
> I haven't read enough of your discussions to have an opinion of why you
> don't always get a reply.   But based on this one message alone, I'm
> inclined to guess that it is because you have unreasonable assumptions and
> people don't always feel like trying to explain this to you.   (Feel free
> to ignore my guess as it's based on a very small sample size.)
>
>
>
>>   That's just how the process works here.
>>
>
> You need to look at the other side of the process. As I see that when
> there is an adopted draft and I get interested in and discuss,
> still managers are not reply or they may not guide process for listening
> and discussions and replies from editor,
>
>
> Why do you think you are in a position to tell me what I need to do?
>

 AB>  why not, do we have a position in IETF that makes others not allowed
to guide/advise?

AB> IMHO, it is allowed to discuss thoughts, requirements, and ways of
looking at ideas or standards, use of standards, procedures or processes.
May be the only position I find my self in is that I am from Africa (i.e.
usually IETF does not do meetings at Africa, but that does not mean I am in
weak position in ietf-discussions).

AB>  Yes in ietf  we have managers, AD and WG chair positions, but our IETF
procedure does not prevent participants to tell ADs or WG Chairs what they
need to do. I try to follow procedures/guidance/RFCs, but not
positions/managers, and I did not find in ietf procedure any prevent
related to positions.

AB> IMHO, volunteering engineers and ietf participants are allowed to
guide/advise each other, that can be one of the purposes of the open
ietf-discussion-lists.

best regards,

AB