Subject: [weirds] WEIRDS and Get Off My Lawn

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 14:54:00 -0800

During yesterday's APPWG, there was a presentation about the
get-off-my-lawn draft (draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn-00). The
presentation points out the RDAP query draft
(draft-ietf-weirds-rdap-query) as being in violation of some of these
best practices. When Murray, who chairs both this group and APPWG,
asked about the conflict, the response was "But we are right."

Mark, is it possible we could get an explanation to the WEIRDS working
group of what we are doing wrong and why? If possible, I think we
should a lot agenda time on Thursday if Mark can make it. Otherwise, I
think a discussion on this list would be welcomed.

-andy

---

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 23:07:58 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Newton
> Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 5:54 PM
> To: [email-masked]; Mark Nottingham
> Subject: [weirds] WEIRDS and Get Off My Lawn
> 

Agreed. I'd also appreciate specific suggestions for changes to the syntax described in rdap-query.

Scott

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:35:39 -0800

Mark,

If you can't make the session, could you please just put your comments
in email to this list. It would be best if we had a group discussion
of these issues.

-andy

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Scott et al,
>
> Unfortunately, I’m already double-booked during that slot.
>
> I can provide some detailed feedback / explanation / suggestions via e-mail soon, if that works. I could also (or alternatively) catch up with people informally after that slot.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On 5 Nov 2013, at 3:07 pm, Hollenbeck, Scott <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:23:41 -0800

I brought this issue to WEIRDS early on (specifically, RFC6570),
specifically because I knew this issue was coming, but the position of
WEIRDS participants has repeatedly been that our use case is an exception;
it's "an elegant solution to a problem we don't have".  I decided not to
press the matter because you guys are actually doing implementations and
I'm not, so I yield to your expertise end experience.

Two things to note: (a) The work in APPSAWG
(draft-ietf-appsawg-uri-get-off-my-lawn, specifically) is seeking BCP
status and appears to have quite a bit of support, so I don't think WEIRDS
can brush it off again.  (b) The REPUTE working group (where I was author
of most of the documents) did follow what that draft says; it wasn't
difficult to code and is deployed, so at least there's an implemented and
working example, which means most of the hard work WEIRDS clients need to
do is already done in the form of open source libraries.

My personal opinion will not be part of this discussion, and if necessary I
will recuse myself from consensus calls in both working groups.  This is
for the participants on both sides to hash out.

I have invited Mark to talk to us on Thursday if he can make it, or if not,
I hope he'll talk to us on the list.  Given the existing support for the
matter, it's entirely possible we'll draw a DISCUSS if we don't at least
have a good argument for staying our present course.

-MSK

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Andrew Newton <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds
>

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:13:46 -0800

Hi Scott et al,

Cheers,

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 23:15:49 -0800

> have a good argument for staying our present course.

I'm a little curious how the get-off-my-lawn draft can be said to have
reached IETF consensus if a working group has evaluated it for their
needs and disagrees with it.

Regardless, I look forward to the discussion on this topic. Certainly
if there is wisdom Mark can impart upon us then we will benefit, and
if so perhaps the interaction will help to strength his draft as well.

-andy

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 02:08:38 -0800

I'm curious about that myself, since nobody has said anything about it
having consensus yet.  What I did say is that it has existing support in
APPSAWG and nobody in there appears to be opposed, which was evident if you
were in the room on Monday and/or on the apps-discuss mailing list.  But it
doesn't even have APPSAWG consensus at that point, because that question
hasn't been called.

-MSK

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:56:44 -0200

APPSAWG =! WEIRDS

    We do not have the same needs and requirements.

    Perhaps APPSAWG needs to hear more from WEIRDS before going ahead.

Best regards,
as

On 11/6/13, 8:08 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> having consensus yet.  What I did say is that it has existing support
> in APPSAWG and nobody in there appears to be opposed, which was
> evident if you were in the room on Monday and/or on the apps-discuss
> mailing list.  But it doesn't even have APPSAWG consensus at that
> point, because that question hasn't been called.
>
> -MSK
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Andrew Newton <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 06:15:08 -0800

Murray,

I was merely trying to figure out your statement regarding how a
DISCUSS could be lodged against a WEIRDS doc on the grounds of a BCP
that has not reached IETF-wide consensus. However I'll set aside this
thought experiment for now as it appears to be a distraction.

Hopefully this is to be a good test case for the application of Mark's
draft, and so we probably all benefit from a discussion.

-andy

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:04:48 -0800

On 11/6/13 6:15 AM, Andrew Newton wrote:
> that has not reached IETF-wide consensus.

A legitimate technical issue, whether part of a BCP or not, is a 
perfectly reasonable justification for a chair not declaring consensus 
in a WG, and is certainly a justification for a DISCUSSion with the 
IESG. The claim (made by Arturo, not you) that somehow WEIRDS gets to do 
things that APPSAWG will disagree with in the end is not tenable; 
consensus is an IETF-wide concept, not limited to the members of any 
particular WG. The IETF is an open, cross-area (let alone cross-group) 
organization.

Let's figure out the concern here and see if we should and can address it.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 16:23:56 -0200

On 11/6/13, 4:04 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> IESG. The claim (made by Arturo, not you) that somehow WEIRDS gets to
> do things that APPSAWG will disagree with in the end is not tenable;
    That seems appropiate.

/as