Subject: RE: [newtrk] updating the newtrk charter

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:05:22 -0700

> Rather than simply complaining about IETF's
> apparently-deteriorating rate of production of high-quality
> work, I've been trying to inject ideas into the works (some
> updated versions of fairly old ones) that, in my opinion, may
> help to reduce the amount of nonsense associated with the
> standards process and, with a bit of goodwill and luck, permit
> focusing resources more efficiently on getting quality standards
> out.

Would it be fair to sumarize the approach behind the drafts
proposed to be that it is time to face the fact that whatever
process is devised many IETF protocol specifications have reached
a point where the return on additional effort has long since 
ceased to yield returns, and that it would be better to simply
recognize that fact and move on?

> But I don't have a solution to those
> problems in the general case, what is being proposed is
> precisely directed to eliminating some other problems in that
> category, and I am appalled that we are spending significant
> time on the principle of whether the charter should be changed
> to explicitly incorporate this work --work that clearly, IMO,
> falls within the intent of the existing charter-- that should be
> spent on the work itself.

I don't think that any general solution to the situation the IETF
has found itself in is going to be possible until such time as
people are willing to acknowledge the fact that there may be 
positive things that the IETF can learn from other standards 
processes. At present the only discussion of other standards 
processes that is acceptable is of the 'aren't we great' variety.

The IETF is now in competition with W3C and OASIS. From my point
of view the principle problem with the industry lead forums is that
the cost keeps out individual participants. In the case of W3C
the cost also keeps out industry participants but this is irrelevant
since the process differences are independent of the business model.

The issue I was reacting to in John's suggestion was the implication
that the solution to the current situation of the IETF was to 
create yet another labor intensive process. 

OK it turns out that the $5 million being sought by ICANN is to fund 
the IANA process alone. Given the sum involved I had assumed they were 
doing rather more than just the IANA function.

If Hansard and the Oxford English Dictionary can manage SGML then so
can the IETF. The IANA function of creating registries and assigning
numbers from them is a process that can be easily implemented as
an automated one, for which there are numerous existence proofs.

If the IETF does not want to try newfangled 15 year old technology 
then the same effect might be achieved through the use of a more 
appropriate document classification scheme. RFC numbers have had 
their day, the sooner they are eliminated the better.

One of the big problems with IETF process is that everyone realizes
that the issue of an RFC number has become much more than being
a mere request for comment. So a whole series of hurdles have been
thrown up to gate access to RFC numbers.

An identification scheme that uses the protocol identifier such as
is already used for drafts has the effect of automatically grouping
related information. There would need to be something of a change
from current practice to achieve the effect that John is after,
Basically a WG like DRUMS set up to rework SMTP would have to create
drafts with IDs in the SMTP series. 

And yes, the format of the document is important if the IETF is going
to compete effectively with W3C and OASIS. Nobody would ever send
their resume formatted in RFC format, not if they wanted the job that
is. The IETF uses HTML when it wants to communicate effectively,
it can use a decent text format for specifications. Every other
standards organization, every major parliamentary system has been
able to take this step. Pretending that there is something exceptional
about the IETF that makes it necessary to produce documents in a 
1980s teletype format is really pretending that the IETF is not
operating in a world where there is a choice of standards organizations.

Jim Collins has written an excellent series of books on managing 
successful enterprises. One of the key features of a successful
organization that is identified by Collins is that a successful
organization faces the brutal facts.

The brutal fact here is that a very large number of engineers have
effectively abandonded the IETF in favor of other standards
organizations.

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

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 10:18:17 -0700

Any index that is maintained by manual means is inevitably going to be
incomplete and inconsistent when you have a large corpus.

There is at current no way that the reader of rfc

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Eliot Lear [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Fri Aug 13 10:01:47 2004
To:	Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc:	'Keith Moore'; [email-masked]'; [email-masked]'
Subject:	Re: [newtrk] updating the newtrk charter

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> I don't pretend to fully understand  the problem but

That didn't stop you from arguing a solution either!

> 
> What is needed here is a comprehensive concordance of standards terms so
> that all the requirements and advisories that pertain to a particular
> specification can be readiy retrieved.

Why are the old ones bad?

> 
> It is a trivial matter to do this if a modern document processing format
is
> used for the documents. Instead we rely on manual processes to do the job
at
> an enormous cost. Icann was hiting up the registrars for an increase in
fees
> to fund the rfc editor function.

The RFC editor spends a whole lot of timing actually attempting to make 
documents more readable, and not just through changes of terminology. 
That's a small part.  The hard part is when people use phrases like 
"comprehensive concordance of standards", requiring average folk to 
scratch their heads to interpret meaning ;-)

> 
> If an organization wants to be taken seriously as a technology leader it
had
> better learn to use some technology that is less than two decades old.

Like what?  And again, why?

Eliot
.