Subject: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, "The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship"

From: IAB Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:50:21 -0400

This is a call for review of "The IEEE 802 / IETF Relationship"
prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC.

The document is available for inspection here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-rfc4441rev/

The Call for Review will last until 20 June 2013.
Please send comments to [email-masked]. 

On behalf of the IAB,
  Russ Housley
  IAB Chair

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 18:07:27 -0700

>prior to potential approval as an IAB stream RFC.

In Section 1:

   "This document contains a set of principles and guidelines that serves
    as the basis for establishing collaboration between Project 802 of
    the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 802) and
    the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) of the Internet Society
    (ISOC)"

Is the IETF a task force of the Internet Society?

In Section 3.1.2:

   "4.  Appointment of RFC Series and Internet Assigned Number Authority
       (IANA) roles"

What is the meaning of IANA roles in the above?

In Section 3.1.4

   "Voting:   Both organizations use voting as a decision-making tool,
              but IEEE 802 uses voting within working groups, while IETF
              working groups do not use voting.  Working group chairs may
              ask for a "show of hands" or "take a hum" to judge backing
              for a proposal, but this is not considered to be "voting" -
              The IESG does ballot documents when considering them for
              publication.  This balloting is a final approval for
              publication."

The first part of the text says that the IETF uses voting whereas the 
"hum" is not considered as "voting".  "Decision-making" might be a 
better label.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 04:14:07 +0200

Reply to your request dated 05.06.2013

Reviewer: Abdussalam Baryun
Dated 06.06.2013
The I-D: draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04
A1 Comments: Overall

Overall, why does the document start with IEEE before IETF. If this is
a document produced by us as IETF, we need to focus on the
relationship of OUR organisation first with others. So IMHO, it should
say in the title: The IETF/ IEEE 802 Relationship. Within all the
document I recommend we follow that focus on the relationship between
the IETF and IEEE 802. In the sections I recommend to start with IETF
not IEEE802. Furthermore, the title just says relationship, it is not
enough title, what kind of relationship you are doing? The word
relationship is not mentioned in the Abstract at all which I expected
that.

AB>change> please amend the title to : The IETF and IEEE 802
Collaboration Relationship.

Why the I-D does not reference a normative reference from IEEE that
also states the relationship between IEEE802 / IETF, or is there no
document procedure for the other party?

Each IETF and IEEE802 should have their own terminology in this I-D,
there is some mixing which confuses, example ballot used in IEEE802
but the I-D uses it for IETF as well (please change). Are we ignoring
our other terminologies of IETF procedure.

Section 3.1.4 Cultural differences

AB> there is missing culture issue which is the opennes, is the IEEE
802 open for access. Culture does not mean only how and when making
decisions, the culture is about interacting with the COMMUNITY. I am
not sure about the domain of the IEEE802 community, but know the IETF
community.

AB> ADD> please describe in this section the communities and access
policy to each organisation body (WG, Working task, etc).

Best Regards
AB

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:01:53 +0200

I want to discuss this issue of collaboration if I get a
response/permission. How can the IETF participant collaborate with
IEEE 802 memebr/participant? From the I-D I see that the IETF
participant NEEDs the IETF WG chair to do that, but the IEEE 802
participant does not need any chair.

 Are we collaborating at all levels as management and participants, or
are we collaborating at management only from one organisation and at
other levels at the other organisation (no equal opportunities)?

I RECOMMEND that this I-D reconsiders the collaboration and leave it
between managements of both organisations, as long as one of the
organisation is collaborating mostly at management.

If we don't discuss and only review, there may be a misunderstandning
between community and the author.

Regards
AB

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 04:01:08 +0100

> Is the IETF a task force of the Internet Society?

RFC2031 documented the takeover. Snuck through on informational...

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of SM [[email-masked]]
Sent: 06 June 2013 02:07
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, "The IEEE  802 / IETF Relationship"

In Section 1:

In Section 3.1.2:

In Section 3.1.4

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:12:48 +0100

A couple of minor comments:

- For some unfathomable reason IEEE people seem to call mailing
lists "reflectors" - that might be worth a mention. Section 4
otherwise seems repetitive.

-  3.3.1.4 says: Since it is
   possible to participate in IETF without attending meetings, or even
   joining a mailing list, IETF WG chairs will provide the information
   to anyone who requests it.  However, since IEEE 802 work-in-progress
   is copyrighted, incorporating material into IETF documents or posting
   the username/password on mailing lists or websites is not permitted.

That's a pretty bogus setup. I would think that if IEEE do want to
share some or all drafts with us they could much more easily create
a web page when those drafts are available without access control.
Or we could if they didn't mind. (Or I could do it if there's no "we"
that wants to:-) Asking IETF WG chairs to deal with passwords is a
bit silly. I'm not objecting to this, but am suggesting someone ask
IEEE if they'd like to consider the silliness here and fix it.

S.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:20:12 +0100

> Asking IETF WG chairs to deal with passwords is a bit silly.

Maybe they could be emailed a monthly reminder of their personal subscription password on the first of each month.

Lloyd Wood

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell [[email-masked]]
Sent: 06 June 2013 14:12
To: IAB Chair
Cc: IAB; IETF
Subject: Re: Call for Review of draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt, "The IEEE 802      / IETF Relationship"

S.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:09:10 -0700

>RFC2031 documented the takeover. Snuck through on informational...

It's part of the poorly documented historical facts which happened 
after some IETF financial woes.

I read draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04 again.  Section 1 mentions that:

   "This version of the document responds to comments received during IAB
    Last Call."

I would have expected the IAB to catch issues which are related to the IETF.

Section 3.1.4 lists "Balance between mailing lists and meetings" as a 
cultural difference.  The last sentence in the paragraph:

   "Attendance at meetings is critical to influencing decisions
    and to maintaining membership voting rights."

sums up a major difference.  It could be said that a standard setting 
organization is dominated by interest groups (see RFC 6852) which can 
afford the air travel if major decisions are made during a plenary or 
interim meetings.

In Section 3.3.1.4:

   "However, since IEEE 802 work-in-progress is copyrighted, incorporating
    material into IETF documents or posting"

The above does not describe correctly why it is not possible to 
incorporate the material.  It could mention that due to copyright 
restrictions, incorporating materials into IETF documents or postings 
is not allowed.

In Section 3.3.1.5:

   "IEEE 802 standards, once approved, are published and made available
    for sale."

This could be a cultural difference.  RFC 6852 glosses over that (see 
"Standards specifications are made accessible to all for 
implementation and deployment.")

BTW, the draft could be made shorter by incorporating the relevant 
topics by reference instead of describing them in the draft.  RFC 
6756 has a better layout in my opinion.  RFC 4441 describes the 
policies and procedures that have developed in order to coordinate 
between the IETF and IEEE 802.  draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04 mentions that 
it describes the standardization collaboration between the IETF and 
IEEE 802.  The result looks like a "Taoesque" mix of IETF and IEEE 
802 material.

   Why is it important to explain the IAB responsibilities?

   Why is it important to explain IESG and IAB member appointments?

   What does cross-referencing documents have to do with the relationship?

I suggest looking at the draft while taking the above 
(non-exhaustive) list of questions into consideration.  The details 
of the collaboration, e.g. how to get a password, can be documented 
through a Wiki.  The IEEE does a decent job of documenting its 
standards document lifecycle; it's less convoluted than the 
IETF.  The relevant URL is not mentioned in the draft.  The draft 
lists analogies between the IETF and IEEE 802 whereas the reality is 
that the two organizations operate differently.  The details of that 
is written as politically appropriate version of reality.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Peter Yee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:09:45 -0700

>This could be a cultural difference.  RFC 6852 glosses over that (see
"Standards specifications are made accessible to all for implementation and
deployment.")

IEEE 802 standards are made more-or-less freely available (you have to agree
to terms of use online) after a period of 6 months from publication.
Details are here: http://standards.ieee.org/about/get/.

		-Peter

---

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:29:15 -0500

> IEEE if they'd like to consider the silliness here and fix it.

Hi, Stephen,

It's probably worth pointing out to the community that both IETF and 
IEEE 802 leadership have been looking at previous revisions and asking 
"if they do that, should we do the same?"

The most recent case I can think of was that IETF published a list of 
its liaison managers, while IEEE 802 did not - but review discussions 
prompted iEEE 802 to start publishing a list of its liaison managers as 
well. There have been others.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if either organization has run out of 
bogosity to fix, of course ;-)

Spencer

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 07:38:09 +0000

Hi Steve,

We shall ask the question, but I can already guess the answers. Current IEEE rules (copyright rules I think) do not allow for sharing of work-in-progress drafts with no access control. You need to be a participant of some sort in order to access such documents, and this validated by the fact that you know the username/password combination. These are IEEE, beyond the power of IEEE 802 to change. 

As a chair who dealt with this for a number of years in the past I can bear witness that this is not a huge task. The IEEE 802 entrusts the chair with the username and password to access IEEE 802 WG documents. The IETF WG chair from time to time will forward this information on a per request basis to IETF participants who need access to the IEEE 802 documents. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:13 PM
> To: IAB Chair
> Cc: IAB; IETF
> - For some unfathomable reason IEEE people seem to call mailing lists
> "reflectors" - that might be worth a mention. Section 4 otherwise seems
> repetitive.
> 
> That's a pretty bogus setup. I would think that if IEEE do want to share
> some or all drafts with us they could much more easily create a web page
> when those drafts are available without access control.
> that wants to:-) Asking IETF WG chairs to deal with passwords is a bit
> silly. I'm not objecting to this, but am suggesting someone ask IEEE if
> they'd like to consider the silliness here and fix it.
> 
> S.
> 
>

---

From: IAB Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:59:31 -0400

The Call for Review has been extended to 4 July 2013.

Please send comment to iab (at) iab.org or enter a ticket in TRAC. 

A new ticket can be entered:
  - using http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iab/trac/newticket
  - select the component of /home/ietf/id/draft-iab-rfc4441rev-04.txt

On behalf of the IAB,
  Russ Housley
  IAB Chair