Subject: [RPSEC] Making progress

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:40:48 +0100

I am concerned that we are not progressing as we might, especially when I look
back at the archive and at the significant contributions many people have made.

What I see is a recurring debate about an important, but not especially large,
element of IDR, about some aspects of policy, ones that cannot be effected with
the
facilities of bgp4-26, some of which cannot be effected with the facilities of
any RFC.

To move forward, I want a declaration of rough consensus on things we can agree
on, leaving out the few, if important, issues we cannot and then taking a view
on what we do about the latter.

This needs chairmanship and that is what I think we are not getting; if any, it
is coming from the likes of Sandy Murphy and not the designated chairs of rpsec.

Russ, I like to hear the views you express, especially when they challenge my
convictions, but my sense is that they are getting in the way and they stop us
reaching consensus where we could.  I think you should step aside as chair of
rpsec pro tem (while continuing to argue your case technically) and should ask
the ADs to appoint another chair.

Tom Petch

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

---

From: Blaine Christian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:02:38 -0500

Hey Tom,

I think Russ has been a pretty good agitator for this group.  While he may
have his moments I think his work to involve as many people as possible in
the process, and drive consensus, has been instrumental is creating this
conversation that we are all having.

Personally, I believe in hearing all arguments (and doing my own fair share
of arguing myself).  I know Russ has been an opinionated, and occasionally
abrasive, person but the occasional hand grenade seems to have pushed the
requirements forward quite a bit.  Without vigorous conversation and
detailed debate we might just approach hubris in thinking certain individual
opinions (from anyone) are the "correct" ones.

Can I suggest to the group that we keep Russ, and Tony, as our cheerleader
co-chairs?  If they seems to be tearing the group apart and communication
decreases we should re-evaluate.  I would say that if the thread just "dies"
for a couple months due to "lack of interest" we should start discussing
potential means of revitalizing things (such as kicking out chairs).

If folks feel otherwise can you please contact me off-list?  I don't want to
drag this discussion too far down politics.

Regards,

Blaine

---

From: Tony Tauber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:05:37 -0500

Hi Tom,

I'll take the whack.  In this most recent go-round since Minneapolis,
(which, due to a death in the family, I had to leave early), I think
the discussion has mostly been taking an orderly path.

I'd like to shelve the "you can prove" "you can't prove" stuff and
much of the wangling about operational pathologies and policies.

I think there's a good consensual intuition about what BGP is (and has
been intended to be) used for and much of that has been clarified
through this discussion.

Either Blaine or I will take the most recent threads and indicate what
changes to the document that might be made or try to clarify the point
being debated for consensus or deferral if inclusion in this document
(vs. some successor) is not necessary.

Does that make sense?

Thanks for your prodding,

Tony

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Tom Petch wrote:

> I am concerned that we are not progressing as we might, especially
> when I look back at the archive and at the significant contributions
> many people have made.
>
> What I see is a recurring debate about an important, but not
> especially large, element of IDR, about some aspects of policy, ones
> that cannot be effected with the facilities of bgp4-26, some of
> which cannot be effected with the facilities of any RFC.
>
> To move forward, I want a declaration of rough consensus on things
> we can agree on, leaving out the few, if important, issues we cannot
> and then taking a view on what we do about the latter.
>
> This needs chairmanship and that is what I think we are not getting;
> if any, it is coming from the likes of Sandy Murphy and not the
> designated chairs of rpsec.
>
> Russ, I like to hear the views you express, especially when they
> challenge my convictions, but my sense is that they are getting in
> the way and they stop us reaching consensus where we could.  I think
> you should step aside as chair of rpsec pro tem (while continuing to
> argue your case technically) and should ask the ADs to appoint
> another chair.
>
> Tom Petch

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:36:01 +0100

I'll sleep on it while waiting to see what anyone else says; after all, I do
believe in consensus:-) (and I am aware of a certain level of off-list
activity).

Tom Petch

---

From: "Tom Petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:10:11 +0100

Ok, no other comments on the list so over to you.

The issue I raised I see as a question of process, of management, of how to make
the most of the technical resources available - us! - seeing a need right now
for more chairing, for nailing down what we can agree on when we can.

I hope you will be able to provide that but do wish you had someone else
explicitly supporting you.

Tom Petch

---

From: Merike Kaeo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:34:13 -0800

As a previous co-chair for another wg, when there was a document which 
had lots of input from one of us, the 'chair-type' decisions were left 
to the one not involved with the document.  I don't see a problem so 
far.......as long as decisions are made to reach concensus on 
discussions and not have them re-hashed numerous times.

I was surprised to see a comment to replace a chair who in my opinion 
has not exerted any chair influence over his technical contribution.

[I'm guilty of not keeping up with mailing list in past 2 months but 
glance at emails to see where things are at.  Have 245 emails to sift 
through to come up with my own conclusions and maybe contribute some 
opinions - perhaps I'd better get to them in next day or so]

- merike

---

From: Shane Amante <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:48:36 -0700

Tom, All,

First, I think Russ has done a good job, particularly with his technical 
contribution, in moving the work in RPSEC forward.  As Merike noted in a 
later e-mail, due to Russ' (and others!) outstanding efforts it's been 
difficult to stay on top of the "avalanche" of e-mail threads and weigh 
in on the issues in a timely manner.  (Most often by the time I get 
caught up, Russ or someone else has already brought up the issues or 
points I would've responded with).

Second, I think Russ has adequately maintained a neutral stance between 
his duties as co-chair and technical contributor to work in the WG. 
Also, (as Merike already noted), it's not unusual in other IETF WG's for 
co-chairs to be active contributors to work products of their own WG's, 
(provided they recuse themselves and ask the other co-chair to seek 
consensus of WG participants on said work products).

Finally, I agree with Tony that what we really need is a list of 
outstanding issues.  Those should each be circulated in their own, 
individual thread, so we can focus on them individually and hopefully 
come to some type of agreement and move forward.

-shane