Subject: RE: Motions before the WG

From: Carlisle Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 14:12:46 -0500

Hi Todd,

I've told myself multiple times not to jump into this thread, and I refuse
to get dragged into a long back-and-forth discussion.  But I do feel
compelled to make the (probably futile) effort to try and clarify what I
think must be a misunderstanding on your part...

> ----------
> From: 	todd glassey[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:33 AM
> To: 	[email-masked]
> Subject: 	Re: Motions before the WG - Was Re: Software for PKI
> 
>     3)    What this response also does is establishes a PKIX/RFC as being
> of
> the same or similar value to a IESG/Standard which makes RFC's in PKIX
> critically valuable in a financial sense. Thus anyone denied RFC status
> can
> show clear civil damage to themselves...
> 
> In closing my comment - I still think that the WG Chairs need to pass all
> drafts that qualify to RFC Status and the IETF needs to acknowledge this
> or
> it needs to formalize PKIX's operations and processes. This is also one
> way
> to deal with other orgs taking and referring to things before they are
> ready. If anyone can get an RFC then... they will have addressed the use
> of
> the IETF's RFC's as standards too.
 
WG Chairs do *not* have the power to pass anything to RFC Status.  Moving
from Internet Draft to a Proposed Standard RFC is an IESG decision, not a WG
decision or a WG Chair decision.  So, your plea that WG Chairs should "pass
all drafts that qualify to RFC Status" is simply not possible; they do not
have the ability to do that within the IETF.  The most they can do is give a
document to the IESG with a recommendation that says, effectively, "our WG
is finished with this document (i.e., we have achieved rough consensus) and
we believe it would be appropriate for the IETF Standards Track".  The IESG
can come back with "we don't like it; it needs to be revised in all these
ways", or "this would be more appropriate as an Informational or
Experimental RFC", or whatever.  The Chairs, along with the rest of the WG,
have to live with whatever decision is handed down.

As for your suggestion that everything that anybody submits should be worked
on within the group, I think that this, too, is slightly out-of-line with
IETF philosophy and practice.  The mantra of IETF is "rough consensus and
running code".  A draft whose community of interest consists only of the
author will have a hard time achieving rough consensus unless the size of
the WG is less than 2.  This is why people have suggested that for such
situations it would be preferable to do an independent submission or form a
new WG.

Understanding how the IETF works should be a pre-requisite to complaining
about how it works...  :-)

Carlisle.

P.S., I think that your arguments and observations would carry more weight
without the personal attacks on the Chairs and their efforts.  At the very
least, people might be more interested in reading them.

If you really find the current procedures so objectionable, remember that
you are entirely free to start your own WG and run things differently
(within the policies of the IETF, of course!).  You have hinted that you are
reluctant to do this because of the great public perception that PKIX has
internationally.  But would PKIX have such a reputation for a solid body of
work if its "management" was really as poor as you keep suggesting?