Subject: Re: [Ieprep] problem context

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 20:09:53 EST

In a message dated 11/26/2002 4:53:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> On Monday, Nov 25, 2002, at 15:49 America/Montreal, Choi, Don wrote:
> > Please check the minutes of the IEPREP BOF at SLC.
> 
> Don,
> 
>     One instance does not contradict my claim of "most".  There were
> at least 3 separate BOFs for IEprep, which itself was a violation of the
> normal IESG custom of only allowing 2 BOFs to any given proposal.  And
> at SLC, that notion was shot up pretty broadly by IETF folks.
> 
> Mind, several IAB members at SLC each came away with the understanding that
> "no WG would be created since there was clear community consensus to NOT 
> create
> this WG".  Obviously community input from the BOF was not the basis of the
> IESG decision to charter this WG.
> 
> 

As Don stated, MLPP was included in the report of the Salt Lake City #52 
meeting (in a BOF).

The Minneapolis (March 2002) #53 meeting report has several references to 
MLPP in th IEPREP WG, including a presentation by James Polk that referenced 
how the MLPP requirement could be met by the proposed Resource Priority 
Header.

At Yokohama #54 meeting, I made a presentation on the requirements for DoD 
"Assured Service" (aka MLPP).

At Atlanta #55 meeting, I made a presentation on Accounting requirements for 
"Priority services", which includes MLPP.

Incidentally, I don't follow your statement about there being 3 BOFs. As 
reported in Salt Lake City by Scott "The first time was at IETF 48". There 
was none at IETF 49, 50, or 51 (according to the agenda). So Salt Lake City 
was the second and Minneapolis was a WG meeting. In any case, as the SLC 
minutes state "The September 11, 2001 incident has crystallized more interest 
in emergency services." So what if there were 3, 4 or 10 BOFs to get enough 
people to understand that this issue is important?

The minutes of SLC indicate a lot of interest in the subject (many speakers), 
but I do not see any hint that there was "clear community consensus to NOT 
create the WG". I don't really see much in the minutes at all that I would 
classify as "the notion was shot up pretty broadly".

Further, I am unaware that the IAB has any part in a decision by the IETF to 
create a WG. If "several IAB members" have an opinion on this matter, I trust 
that they will not be tempted to use their position on the IAB to further 
their private positions or opinions.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 21:31:42 -0500

On Tuesday, Nov 26, 2002, at 20:09 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> So what if there were 3, 4 or 10 BOFs to get enough people to 
> understand
> that this issue is important?

IETF custom is that no proposal gets more than 2 BOFs.

And the community did not agree that the issue is important.  Creation
of a WG is at the discretion of the IESG, which normally listens to
community input.  But please, lets not go there...

> Further, I am unaware that the IAB has any part in a decision by the 
> IETF to create a WG.

Correct.  It does not.  RFC-2026 is *very* clear on this point.  For my 
part,
I am repeatedly on the record as believing that it is a huge feature 
that IAB
does not make these decisions.  And I've repeatedly declined to stand 
for the IESG,
including declining a nomination to the IESG this very month.

> If "several IAB members" have an opinion on this matter, I trust that 
> they will not be tempted to use their position on the IAB to further 

IAB has no power over the IETF standards process, except in the narrow 
situation
of hearing an appeal of IESG decisions.  I am also on the record 
repeatedly in
saying that this also is a huge feature for the IAB.  Further, there is 
a clear
track record that IAB members who were directly involved in an appeal 
chain recuse
themselves.[1]

So there is no mechanism via which someone on the IAB could further any 
IETF
position even if one should want to do so.  Now the IESG are in a 
somewhat
different situation since they *are* the ones who manage the IETF 
standards
process.

Ran
[email-masked]

[1] A fine example would be the appeal by W.A. Simpson.

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