headers
Brian E Carpenter | 1 Nov 2005 02:12
Picon
Favicon

Oops Re: WG Action: Conclusion of Credential and Provisioning (enroll)

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Sam Hartman wrote:
> ...
> 
>> A ticket requesting closure of a working group includes a few things:
>>
>> 1) the working group being closed.  High dissatisfaction has resulted
>>    in the past when the wrong working group is closed.
>>
>>
>> 2) Additional comments to be included in the WG closure message.
>>
>> 3)  Whether the mailing list remains open.
>>
>> 4) Disposition of WG documents.
>>
>> In this instance Russ chose to give no additional comments.
> 
> 
> Personal opinion: I think it's reasonable to give some kind of
> explanation as a matter of course. For example, I was outside
> the charmed circle when MARID was closed, and I fell off my stool
> in astonishment. One sentence of explanation would have helped.

I'm told that my recollection is faulty and that in that case
there was an explanation in the closure notice.

     Brian
> 
>    Brian
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin | 1 Nov 2005 03:43

Re: from the horse's mouth

At 19:50 31/10/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>But what doesn't help us get on with our work here is discursive 
>decision of vaguely defined societal or cultural implications. 
>That's what I was getting at.

Dear Brian,
full agreement. Describing this way the key societal matters at hand 
certainly shows the IETF is not interested/competent and does not 
intend to invest in them. However the IETF takes leading decisions 
meant to influence or constrain SSDO having interest, competence and 
responsbility. I suggest we reread RFC 3935's principles of 
competence and of responsibility.

There may be/are societal implications of the IAB architecture and of 
the IETF technology. The ISTF has been created in parallel to IETF, 
IAB, IRTF to discuss them and advise the IAB and the IETF. I submit 
we must join forces in reviving the ISTF and the ISSG and that the 
ISSG MUST (a) produce a position or an abstain before an RFC or a 
Charter is approved by the IESG, (b) be part of the appeal chain.

I think the RFC 3066 bis controversy would have be settled for a long 
should the ISSG have reviewed the WG-ltru Charter, published internet 
multilingual support requirements, or required an inclusive rather 
than a exclusive language tagging during the IESG LC.

jfc

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 1 Nov 2005 08:13
Picon
Picon

Re: Oops

Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> I'm told that my recollection is faulty

It's not, that breach of RfC 2418 chapter 4
caused two of the three pending appeals.

                  Bye, Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 1 Nov 2005 09:14
Picon

Re: Oops


--On tirsdag, november 01, 2005 08:13:26 +0100 Frank Ellermann 
<nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> I'm told that my recollection is faulty
>
> It's not, that breach of RfC 2418 chapter 4
> caused two of the three pending appeals.

to be accurate:
the message that MARID was concluded did contain information about why.

<http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg00505.html>

WRT pending appeals, these are listed on

<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Appeals.html>

The two appeals do not concern directly MARID's closing, although one might 
surmise that if MARID had been successful, this mess would have been less 
messy.

                   Harald (just reading public notices)

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
william(at)elan.net | 1 Nov 2005 10:11

Re: Oops


On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> --On tirsdag, november 01, 2005 08:13:26 +0100 Frank Ellermann 
> <nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:
>
>> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm told that my recollection is faulty
>> 
>> It's not, that breach of RfC 2418 chapter 4
>> caused two of the three pending appeals.
>
> to be accurate:
> the message that MARID was concluded did contain information about why.
>
> <http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg00505.html>

You're correct that explanation was properly provided. Frank however
is also correct that closing of the WG was against RFC2418.

In particular the WG was not notified that its closure is being
considered [though it was known that we would not meet the original 
schedule listed in charter - but that happens with many other WGs and
for MARID many thought the original schedule was way too aggressive to 
begin with] so closing of the group came as somewhat of a surprise.
In a similar case with another WG a successful appeal was made and WG
had to be reconstituted:
   http://www.ietf.org/IESG/APPEALS/grow_appeal.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
codewarrior | 1 Nov 2005 10:39
Picon

Re: Oops

> At least one of the appeals would have been directly avoided as the  
> problem was not present in the documents being worked on by the WG.
> Second appeal would probably have been avoided too as WG was just
> about to discuss how to deal with the issue and likely would have  
> found an acceptable solution.
>
>

why not start  a revolution ?

cheers

marc

P.S. the iana seems to be the same ignorant people. They need 2 month  
to respond on a messege.
--

-- 
" Die Stimme der Vernunft ist leise, aber sie ruht nicht, ehe sie  
sich Gehör
verschafft hat. "

Les Enfants Terribles
C.V.O. Marc Manthey
Hildeboldplatz 1a
50672 Köln - Germany

main site: http://www.let.de
developer:http://www.cuseeme.de
http://www.applehelpers.com
my blog:http://brain.let.de
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Frank Ellermann | 1 Nov 2005 11:17
Picon
Picon

Re: Oops

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> the message that MARID was concluded did contain information
> about why.

Sure, it forced me to find and speed read 2418.  If you need
even more PESCI or procdoc ideas you could add "update 3710".

> one might surmise that if MARID had been successful, this
> mess would have been less messy.

Yes, and maybe 2476bis 8.1 would discuss the Resent-* cases.
That's now an exercise for 2476ter.

Whoever invented the three steps process apparently knew why
that's necessary.  Guessing, the same as STD 10 ?  Bye, Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gray, Eric | 1 Nov 2005 14:37

RE: Oops

Harald,

	I would say that the pointed-to reference gives a full and 
sufficient explanation of the closing of the MARID working group.

	However, that is a distraction.

	An interesting question in my mind is that it is possible -
in the current operating model - for one person to decide both to
close a group without explanation and to list someone else as the
contact point for questions.  I doubt that was the intent, but it
certainly sound to me like a recipe for DoS...

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces <at> ietf.org 
--> [mailto:ietf-bounces <at> ietf.org]On Behalf Of
--> Harald Tveit Alvestrand
--> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:14 AM
--> To: Frank Ellermann; ietf <at> ietf.org
--> Subject: Re: Oops
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> 
--> --On tirsdag, november 01, 2005 08:13:26 +0100 Frank Ellermann 
--> <nobody <at> xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:
-->
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Harald Tveit Alvestrand | 1 Nov 2005 14:46
Picon

RE: Oops

[offlist - befuddled...]

--On tirsdag, november 01, 2005 11:37:18 -0200 "Gray, Eric" 
<Eric.Gray <at> marconi.com> wrote:

> Harald,
>
> 	I would say that the pointed-to reference gives a full and
> sufficient explanation of the closing of the MARID working group.
>
> 	However, that is a distraction.

..... from what?

> 	An interesting question in my mind is that it is possible -
> in the current operating model - for one person to decide both to
> close a group without explanation and to list someone else as the
> contact point for questions.  I doubt that was the intent, but it
> certainly sound to me like a recipe for DoS...

.... I don't get this either..... the contact points listed in the message 
are the ADs, who were the ones who took the decision....

I must be having a senior moment, since I don't understand what you are 
saying...

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Eliot Lear | 1 Nov 2005 14:47
Picon
Favicon

Call Home BoF <at> IETF

After much deliberation and some discussion there will be a Call Home 
BoF at next week's IETF.  Here is the proposed agenda.  If you wish to 
discuss the topic, please feel free to join the mailing list, which is 
call-home <at> ietf.org.  To subscribe follow this URL:

    https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/call-home

Here is the proposed agenda for next week's meeting:

Description:
Certain protocols, and in particular management protocols where
devices on either end of connection take client server roles may
be able to take advantage of "Call Home" functionality, when
traditional roles are reversed, and a server connect to a client.
Examples of existing protocols that make use of call home include
SMTP [ETRN] and COPS.  At this BoF we will look at extending such
functionality into other protocols, as well as any architectural
issues this raises.

This work stems from efforts in ISMS to extend SNMP to run over SSH,
as well as work as work that has gone on in NETCONF.

We will begin with a discussion of 
draft-lear-callhome-description-03.txt , which contains a description of 
call home, what problems it can solve, and what some of the 
architectural issues are.  During the BoF we may identify additional 
such issues as well as protocols other than management protocols that 
could benefit from this work.  An additional potential question should 
be whether a generic standard or process should be used to implement 
call home, such as rules for SSH.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane