Subject: agenda for the RFC++

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 13:57:58 -0400

Folks,

With an agenda like this

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/agenda-102-rfcplusplus-00

How am I supposed to prepared the the bof?

/Loa
-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Heather Flanagan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:38:14 -0400

Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 16, 2018, at 13:57, Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> With an agenda like this
> 

Hi Loa,

I agree that’s a problem; I can’t speak to how the agenda was put together. To aid folks who do want to do the pre-reading, both the mailing list info page and archive (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/Rfcplusplus) and the BoF proposal page (https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/) give you a description and a reading list.

The slides are also now available: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-rfcplusplus-slides-00

-Heather

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:52:00 -0400

Heather,

Thanks for the pointers, helpful! But in my case a bit late.

/Loa

On 2018-07-16 14:38, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 16, 2018, at 13:57, Loa Andersson <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> 
> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> With an agenda like this
>>
> I agree that’s a problem; I can’t speak to how the agenda was put 
> together. To aid folks who do want to do the pre-reading, both the 
> mailing list info page and archive 
> (https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/Rfcplusplus) and the BoF proposal 
> page (https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/) give you a description and 
> a reading list.
> 
> The slides are also now available: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/materials/slides-102-rfcplusplus-slides-00
> 
> -Heather

--

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 15:09:47 -0400

Hi Loa,

the chair slides are available at (in her email, Heather also sent links
to the mailing list archives and to the original BoF proposal):

You can find the questions there. As you can see, they are a few very
generic questions intended to explore the problem space because, so far,
the discussions on the mailing list have not converged at all. We have
not seen any consensus so far around whether or not there is a problem
and, if so, whether or not it is a problem worth solving.

There have been discussions about the solution space as well, but we
believe we need to discuss the problem space a bit better before jumping
into designing and discussing concrete solutions.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 16:09:35 -0400

Gonzalo,

I'm still not happy with the posted agenda. In RFC 2418 the guidelines
got WG agendas says:

   "For coordinated, structured WG interactions, the Chair(s) MUST
    publish a draft agenda well in advance of the actual session. The
    agenda should contain at least:

    - The items for discussion;
    - The estimated time necessary per item; and
    - A clear indication of what documents the participants will need to
      read before the session in order to be well prepared."

Earlier we have held to this standards when setting up BOFs. Do you
really think the the posted agenda meets the what is indicated above?

/Loa

--

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 08:29:13 +1200

slide 9, Independent column, there are 2 erroneous X's

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 16:34:55 -0400

Hi Loa,

the agenda and the material contain both the items for discussion and
the time allocated to them. We have discussed with a lot of people (who
had different opinions) in order to figure out what would be the most
useful questions to ask. At this point, we believe that these (very
general) questions are the best we have in order to explore the problem
space. If we had more concrete questions that would not be too biased,
we would have used them.

With respect to documents to be read beforehand, the BoF description is
publicly available (as for any other BoF) and it contains a list of RFCs
for background reading. We chose not to include John's draft in the
agenda because it was posted quite late and because it explores (on
purpose) the solution space (as opposed to the problem space).

https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/

As you for sure understand, this is a very controversial topic. So, we
do not think we should have the room discuss more-concrete solutions or
proposals before discussing the actual (or perceived) problem.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 16:40:07 -0400

Gonzalo,

The full text of the agenda as posted on the IETF 102 agenda page is:

Time: Monday - 8:10-19:40
Place: Laurier

10min    administrivia - chairs
15min    questions - chairs
50min    discussion - all
10min    wrap-up - chairs

Can you please point out the "items for discussion"?

/Loa

--

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 16:40:12 -0400

Hi Brian,

if you are not more concrete with your comments, it will be difficult
for us to address them ;-) Please, note that slide 9 lists what has been
done while slide 10 lists what it is allowed. So, for example, those
slides show that while the Independent Stream is not supposed to publish
Proposed Standards, it was somehow done in the past.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:09:12 +1200

Well, I very much doubt that the Independent strem has published a DS and a BCP since the stream was formally defined. Can you clarify?

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:18:39 -0400

I expect this is a place where errors have entered one or more databases.
The BCPs that came from the Independent stream according to the RFC 
Editor database/datatracker are
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3683
and
https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3681

The document history in the datatracker shows that these were not 
Independent stream.

The other surprising things below should also be chased down.

RjS

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:19:55 -0400

Hi Brian,

thanks for the clarification! The slide talks about PS, not DS. I guess
that is what you meant, right?

Anyway, the database shows a bunch of RFCs from the Independent Stream
that are Standards Track or BCP, respectively:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?pubstatus%5B%5D=Standards+Track&std_trk=Any&pub_date_type=any&stream_name=Independent

https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?std_trk=Any&pubstatus%5B%5D=Best+Current+Practice&pub_date_type=any&stream_name=Independent

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:20:50 -0400

the last ones I can think of were PEM a rather long time ago

please be specific 

Scott

> On Jul 16, 2018, at 5:09 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:23:40 -0400

Hi Robert,

checking the database for errors would clearly be a useful exercise. Thanks!

Cheers,

Gonzalo

On 16/07/2018 5:18 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> Well, I very much doubt that the Independent strem has published a DS
>> and a BCP since the stream was formally defined. Can you clarify?
>>
>> Regards
>>     Brian
>>

---

From: "Scott O. Bradner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 17:29:34 -0400

see Loa’s note - might want too clean the data before relying on it

a quick check shows that RFCs 3856-3858 were from the simple WG
RFC 3595 looks like art was the opsawg

did not check the rest

but I doubt the LDAP RFCs were IS

Scott

> On Jul 16, 2018, at 5:19 PM, Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Brian,
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:43:04 +1200

I think there must also be confusion in the data between Independent Submissions
and Direct Submissions to the IESG. Anyway, there isn't time to clean the
data before the BOF starts, but I do find those two Xs very misleading.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 09:44:30 +1200

> that is what you meant, right?

Yes. I was jabber scribing for a WG at the same time, so I got that wrong.

Oops, I'm still scribing...