Subject: Re: Draft IESG Statement on Removal of an Internet-Draft from the IETF Web Site

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:50:52 +0100

Hi Russ,

I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would prefer
groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to know the
reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It is important
that individuals get to make input to new standards not only companies. I
am afraid that only companies are controlling the Internet standards which
seems bad and does not follow the IETF mission. Therefore, there SHOULD be
a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG and a procedure that
WGs follow to accept with reason, not just blocking excellent I-D because
they group think it is bad with no reason or knowledgable discussion. If
there is no procedure then individuals or other organisations will look for
another way to standards their work.

AB
---

 but is this Why not? I thought any I-D can be standard track,

>Todd:

>The Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to produce standards
track RFCs.

>Russ

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:11:30 -0400

--On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 16:50 +0100 Abdussalam Baryun
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I
> would prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but
> also we need to know the reason why some individuals fail to
> convince an IETF WG. It is important that individuals get to
> make input to new standards not only companies.
>... 
> Therefore, there SHOULD be a procedure to make participants
> follow to convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to
> accept with reason, not just blocking excellent I-D because
> they group think it is bad with no reason or knowledgable
> discussion. If there is no procedure then individuals or other
> organisations will look for another way to standards their
> work.

It seems to me that the above has nothing to do with the topic
of removing I-Ds from the archive.  As far as I know, the number
of I-Ds that have been taken down --or even expired early
without recourse-- in the history of the IETF because someone
didn't like the ideas has been zero.   More important, someone
who believes that a WG unreasonably rejected a useful idea or
who wishes to see the reasons for WG decisions documented has
several ways to accomplish that.   An Informational discussion
could be submitted as an individual submission to the IESG or as
an independent submission to the ISE.  My experience and
observation is that such analyses or critiques are almost always
published as RFCs --the really permanent, archival, form around
here-- if they are thoughtful and well-reasoned.  I've seen
rants rejected for RFC publication, but that is because they are
unsupported rants, not because they disagree with some community
conclusion.

   john

p.s. As someone who has spent far more of my IETF existence as
an individual rather than as someone supported by, much less
controlled by, a company, I see company domination as a risk but
not one that has been an actual problem in any but a very small
number of specific topics/areas.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:08:43 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 08:50 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>I think that statement you made is very reasonable which I would 
>prefer groups work to the best of IETF purposes, but also we need to 
>know the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG. It 
>is important that individuals get to make input to

Failing to convince a WG can happen for any of the following reasons:

   (i)   The arguments are unconvincing.

   (ii)  The arguments are unrelated to the topic being discussed.

   (iii) The arguments look good on paper.  Unfortunately, they won't
         work in the real world.

   (iv)  The other individuals do not like the individual. :-)

The above reasons may not even be valid.

>Internet standards which seems bad and does not follow the IETF 
>mission. Therefore, there
>  SHOULD be a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG 
> and a procedure that
>  WGs follow to accept with reason, not just blocking excellent I-D 
> because they group think it is bad with no reason or knowledgable 
> discussion. If there is no procedure then

If the group thinks that an I-D is bad, you can either accept that 
conclusion or you can try to convince the group that it is wrong.  If 
you cannot convince the WG, there is always the Last Call where you 
get a second opportunity to raise your issues.  There are procedures 
if a third opportunity is necessary.

Around a month ago, Adrian Farrel asked the following question [1]:

   "May I have your permission to share this email with the
    document authors."

The answer [2] was:

   "Therefore, I don't want to give any permission to share with them, I will
    leave it to IESG. If IESG agrees to share any/all comments they received
    to any/all author(s), I will have no objection."

That's basically a no.  The above puts the IESG in an unenviable 
position to decide whether to share the email.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74749.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74749.html

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:19:14 +0100

Hi SM,

I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard track
document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or not consider?
The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent.

AB

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 6:08 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> that individuals get to make input to
>>
>
>  Internet standards which seems bad and does not follow the IETF mission.
>> Therefore, there
>>  SHOULD be a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG and a
>> procedure that
> conclusion or you can try to convince the group that it is wrong.  If you
> cannot convince the WG, there is always the Last Call where you get a
> second opportunity to raise your issues.  There are procedures if a third
> opportunity is necessary.
>
> That's basically a no.  The above puts the IESG in an unenviable position
> to decide whether to share the email.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg74749.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74749.html>
> 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg74749.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg74749.html>
>

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:15:40 -0700

Hi Abdussalam,
At 10:19 25-09-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>I ment to say that if independent stream cannot submit a standard 
>track document, then do we have a procedure for the WG to accept or 
>not consider? The last call that you refered to was a WG not independent.

There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a 
Standards Track document.  An author can submit an I-D through the 
IETF Stream if the author would like the I-D to be published on the 
Standards Track.  A WG can adopt such an I-D.

Regards,
-sm

P.S. I read your message [1] again.  The first part seems to be about 
"the reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG".  The 
last part seem to be about "a procedure to make participants follow 
to convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with 
reason".  There was then an "AB" and three hyphens on the next 
line.  It is followed by "but is this Why not? I thought any I-D can 
be standard track,".  It was difficult for me to understand [2] the message.

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75097.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg60902.html

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:03:20 +0100

SM>There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards
Track document. An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream if the
author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards Track. A WG can
adopt such an I-D.

Russ>The Independent Submission Stream cannot be used to produce standards
track RFCs.

So if I follow the second input above, then independent submission cannot
be used to produce standard, then it should go through WG. The question was
if there was disagreement from WG to accept, is there a procedure for the
submitter to follow, or he must follow the WG and forget about his work
(many inventions in the world were not convined by groups/experts, but were
invented only when inventor didn't follow them but followed reasoning).
Sorry if not clear,

AB
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 7:15 PM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:

> There is no such thing as an Independent Stream submitting a Standards
> Track document.  An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream if the
> author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards Track.  A WG can
> adopt such an I-D.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> P.S. I read your message [1] again.  The first part seems to be about "the
> reason why some individuals fail to convince an IETF WG".  The last part
> seem to be about "a procedure to make participants follow to convince WG
> and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with reason".  There was then an
> "AB" and three hyphens on the next line.  It is followed by "but is this
> Why not? I thought any I-D can be standard track,".  It was difficult for
> me to understand [2] the message.
>
> 1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg75097.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg75097.html>
> 2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-**archive/web/ietf/current/**msg60902.html<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg60902.html>
>

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:37:15 -0700

On 9/25/2012 11:15 AM, SM wrote:
> Track document.  An author can submit an I-D through the IETF Stream 
> if the author would like the I-D to be published on the Standards 
> Track.  A WG can adopt such an I-D.
>
> Regards,
> -sm
>
> last part seem to be about "a procedure to make participants follow to 
> convince WG and a procedure that WGs follow to accept with reason".  
> There was then an "AB" and three hyphens on the next line.  It is 
> followed by "but is this Why not? I thought any I-D can be standard 
> track,".  It was difficult for me to understand [2] the message.
>
This is the problem we have - the IETF wants to be able to hold everyone 
hostage and force people to work inside from its operating models today. 
This is a fraud of the most obnoxious type - it is the GSO lying through 
its teeth about how transparent it is IMHO... but these things will all 
come out in the wash I think.

The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative 
standards so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert.
Todd
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5291 - Release Date: 09/25/12
>
>

-- 
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 18:32:04 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, tglassey wrote:

> The IETF needs total transparency and a way to process alternative standards
> so that it is not actively involved in anything dark and covert.
> Todd

That makes no sense ... something can't be an IETF standard if it doesn't
get created and adopted using The IETF's processes. The word 'standard'
implies the approval of some organization/standards body. The independant
stream does allow publishing of alternatives to IETF Standards, but that
doesn't make tham alternative standards. For that some other recognized
group needs to declare it a standard and then it will be An XYZ Group
Standard, not an IETF Standard.

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:18:08 -0700

On 9/25/2012 6:32 PM, David Morris wrote:
> implies the approval of some organization/standards body.
The problem is the IETF Process is not transparent. Most of the vetting 
happens between parties offlist and no capture of that or the underlying 
processes in the standards process is in place. When the IETF was a 
trailing-edge process this wasnt an issue but as it has morphed into a 
leading edge GSO it is now.
> The independant
> doesn't make tham alternative standards.
And that is the problem.

The IETF process of today is based on a 'consensus' process from a 
membership of zero. That in and of itself flies in the face of reason 
and ethical clarity. If there were formal members who came together in a 
framework that the IETF administered it would be OK but the process 
today is too easily abused.
> For that some other recognized
That is the point - the IETF cannot hold the world hostage - it must 
provide open, provably open at that, access to its processes.

The issue is how to remove the political BS which clouds so many 
initiatives. The answer is an alternative standard process which has 
some form or predefined completion such that the standard will just 
issue. There is no fiefdom here there is no magic castle of the 
technological demigod to sacrifice a first-borne too here there is just 
simple and transparent steps which can easily be tracked.

When the journey is completed the standard will automatically issue... 
no IESG no IAB pain no extra administrative overhead for a bunch of 
lifer type standards junkies...  Just simple and clean access to the 
standard process.

Todd
> Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5292 - Release Date: 09/25/12
>
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:55:35 +0100

On 26 Sep 2012, at 03:18, tglassey <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The issue is how to remove the political BS which clouds so many initiatives.

Disagree that this is *the* issue. We also get technical BS and even stuff that's utterly incompressible if you can believe that,

S

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:01:38 +0200

On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:55, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> stuff that's utterly incompressible

In the header compression WG (ROHC), we had that a lot.

(SCNR.  I'm not sure that this thread has any other but comedy value at this point, anyway.)

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:31:01 +0100

> (SCNR.  I'm not sure that this thread has any other but comedy value at this point, anyway.)

Oops - let's see if the phone spell checker gets incomprehensible right this time:-)

S

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:52:30 +0700

On 09/26/2012 04:01 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:

 > (SCNR.

Signal to Clutter plus Noise Ratio?

> I'm not sure that this thread  has any other but comedy value at this
 > point, anyway.)
 >
 > Grüße, Carsten
 >

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:50:30 -0400

> Oops - let's see if the phone spell checker gets incomprehensible right this time:-)

I understood "incompressible" as equivalent to "pure random noise", and 
it made sense! :)

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:16:10 -0700

> Disagree that this is *the* issue. We also get technical BS and even stuff that's utterly incompressible if you can believe that,
We (none of us as technologists) have any business in politics. Further 
the IETF is not a PAC and you dont want that level of review here AFAIK.

If the IETF becomes a PAC then the whole world changes. This is why it 
is not acceptable for the IETF to prevent any standards process from 
completing or interfere with any process. Its necessary to be provably 
fair and open (right?)...

Todd