Subject: Network Working Group

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:16:45 -0800

From your draft IESG Charter:

>Network Working Group

40 years ago a group of researchers was funded by DARPA to study 
packet-based communications, one part of which was the Network Working 
Group. Part of this group has since become the IRTF's End2End Research 
Group, and the rest of the functions have devolved on the IAB and the IETF. 
The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20 
years.

I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them.  The 
world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date 
themselves.

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:45:05 -0800 (PST)

>  From your draft IESG Charter:
...
> world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date

 From 2223bis, section 4.1:

      Please see the front page of this memo for an example of the front
      page heading.  On the first page there is no running header.  The
      top of the first page has the following items left justified:

      "Network Working Group"

         This traditional title must be left-justified on the first line
         of the heading.  It denoted the ARPANET research group that
         founded the RFC series.

The place to change this would be 2223bis, not in the IESG charter
draft.  If you change it in 2223bis, the RFC Editor will change it
everywhere else :-)

Not that I am advocating changing it -- I don't care either way.

Kireeti.

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:31:37 -0500

"Mind!  I don't mean to say that I know of my own knowledge what
relevance there is to the text string that appears in the upper left
corner of the first page of every RFC.  I might have been inclined,
myself, to regard that as a place to put something useful such as the
IETF working group name.  But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the
RFC header boilerplate; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it,
or the Internet's done for.  You will, therefore, permit me to repeat,
emphatically, that this is a document of the Network Working Group."

[excerpted from a previous debate on this subject a few years back,
 with apologies to the ghost of Charles Dickens]

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:17:05 -0500

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 12:16:45PM -0800, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
> I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them.
> The world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it
> date themselves. 

I stopped using it on drafts a few years ago.  I use the relevant WG.

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:11:57 -0500 (EST)

I sometimes put the working group name on drafts also. But an RFC is 
never issued by a working group. It is issued by the I* after IESG 
review and usually after IETF Last Call. I'm dubious about putting the 
WG name in the RFC but if that were done, it shouldn't be more than  an 
interior footnote.

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       [email-masked]
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   [email-masked]

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Scott W Brim wrote:

> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:17:05 -0500
> From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Network Working Group
>

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:24:28 -0500

Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:

>WG name in the RFC but if that were done, 
>
As a practical matter, if one wants to find people to discuss an RFC 
with, knowing what WG it came from (if any) can save steps.  The 
authors' addresses are included, of course, but those sometimes go stale 
before the WG closes down.

-- 
/========================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]                 |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com               |
|Centive           |My opinions are my own.              |
|========================================================|
|Diplomacy: The art of letting someone else have your way|
\========================================================/

---

From: Donald Eastlake 3rd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:26:06 -0500 (EST)

Sounds like an argument for having WG/mailing-list info in or near the 
Authors Address section.

Thanks, Donald

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, John Stracke wrote:

> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:24:28 -0500
> From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:22:27 -0500

Folks,

For some reason, we continue to make followup discussion a matter of
accident, rather than facilitation.

In line with Don's suggesttion:

We ought to make sure that all I-Ds and RFCs contain contact
information, not just for the authors, but also for the group context,
such as the mailing list.

And we should not rely on the good thoughts of random contributors,
but rather we should make sure that ALL our documents make it easy for
new folks to come on board.

d/

Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 11:24:28 AM, you wrote:

>>WG name in the RFC but if that were done, 
JS> As a practical matter, if one wants to find people to discuss an RFC
JS> with, knowing what WG it came from (if any) can save steps.  The 
JS> authors' addresses are included, of course, but those sometimes go stale
JS> before the WG closes down.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 20:18:58 -0500

Fred,

This is a far more satisfying topic than nomcom process or working
group (non)productivity.  Or perhaps it is more useful, since it can
serve as a bit of a reminder about our scope.

The nice thing about the NWG label is that it is so generic, nothing
ties it to the original ARPA team(s) or the later IP development team.

I've occasionally wondered at the wasted space on the page.  The fact
that it is invariant means that it contains no information.

However the historical utility is that it suggests (to me at last)
that there is a group continuity, and it identifies the document as
part of a  33-year history of evolving effort.

In effect, it rather completely means that the series is NOT about the
original contributors, but about a class of contributions.

One might or might not believe that the noise level of the series has
improved (or deteriorated), but the nature of the series has been
pretty consistent.

d/

Monday, March 10, 2003, 3:16:45 PM, you wrote:
FB> 40 years ago a group of researchers was funded by DARPA to study
FB> packet-based communications, one part of which was the Network Working
FB> Group. Part of this group has since become the IRTF's End2End Research
FB> Group, and the rest of the functions have devolved on the IAB and the IETF.
FB> The Network Working Group, as such, has not been functional for nearly 20
FB> years.

FB> I personally would like to see us stop attributing documents to them.  The
FB> world has long since moved on, and those who don't recognize it date
FB> themselves. 

d/

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:48:00 -0500

> such as the mailing list.

it would be useful to have a pointer to the RFC Editor's errata page for
that document also.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:59:59 -0800

> such as the mailing list.

FWIW, this seems somewhat ephemeral. Many mailing lists don't last very 
long; some change (PPVPN has moved quite a bit), while others disappear 
after the WG ends, which is often just when the more significant final 
RFCs are issued.

There are many means by which we can find the WG associated with an RFC, 
such as the IETF WG pages themselves.

Joe