On 22/12/2022 19:49, Martin Duke wrote:
Re: The working group description. Sorry, I screwed this up and totally
forgot that the message would go out to ietf-announce. It was written for
the many transport area people that have been following the discussion at
tsv-area@xxxxxxxx and elsewhere. For the record, if approved, CONGestion
RESponse and Signaling would revise the requirements to standardize
congestion control and accept proposals for new standards-track congestion
control work, but we're several steps from it becoming a WG.
I follow TSVWG and can see no sign of this in the e-mail archive. Ah my
mistake, there was in November!
Meanwhile, how will this WG relate to ICCRG?
Tom Petch
Re: AD/Co-AD. I'm trying to charter a WG because I think we need one. My
role is to write a charter and gather consensus on it. I will not chair the
WG or write any documents for it. I guess I "didn't try hard enough" to
find someone to fine-tune the charter (I suppose people were reluctant to
hold the pen for a document I had written), but I *did* try.
At this point, this is just a non-WG mailing list, widely advertised on
several Transport Area lists, so there's no "coverup". The charter doesn't
have any formal status at all and the proposed WG does not yet have a
datatracker presence; there will be further opportunities for the wider
community to comment before a WG starts up.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 10:55 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Thursday, December 22, 2022 12:08 -0600 Pete Resnick
<resnick=40episteme.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, Martin and Zahed blew this one. Guys, please don't make
everyone in the IETF do a search.
Having done the search:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-area/c_i1V8-fpPoW5uy
47VbOQUN0aB8
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tcpm/icWg-mbUgNfY5jq_AGW
FiobUxeM/
I would have been simple to put such URLs into the
announcement.
<soapbox>
It would also be interesting to have separate discussions at
some point about why it is a really bad idea for ADs to be
primary proponents for new work and making their co-ADs be the
responsible AD. The opportunities for conflicts of interest
(or even just the appearance of CoIs) are huge. If an AD can't
find someone else to be the primary proponent, they either
haven't tried hard enough or it's a sign that the work does
not have sufficient support to get going.
</soapbox>
+1 to Pete's soapbox. And let me add two of my own:
<soapbox 2>
Many, perhaps, most, IETF participants are busy and need to make
decisions about how to prioritize things we do. Perhaps the
expectation that most of us will read a new mailing list
announcement is reasonable (I certainly try). But I expect to
find a summary paragraph there. Asking me (or others) to go
through links and read archived email messages, especially ones
that do not provide full of context, is an invitation to having
the announcement ignored. As Pete (more politely) pointed out,
asking/expecting people to do research before finding those
links is an even stronger invitation.
And, when something mild or uncomfortable is involved -- with
this case of AD and co-AD involvement being an excellent example
-- it is far too easy for someone hostile to, or suspicious of,
the IETF to look at the combination of disincentives to
involvement by anyone but those actively involved and that
proponent/ leadership combination as evidence that there is a
cabal at work and that the announcement is a cover-up.
</soapbox>
<rant> The interactions in which a representative of some
governmental entity or other SDO claims that the IETF cannot be
taken seriously and/or trusted with Internet protocols have not
disappeared. I got dragged into one earlier this month. Every
time we pick, as a WG or mailing list name, some cute acronym
that looks like a name that has an external meaning and that has
nothing obvious to do with the topic, those inclined to make
such claims have something else to point to when they claim that
we act like a bunch of immature children whose processes and
conclusion simply cannot be trusted to represent any real
consensus. I assume that none of us particularly likes those
fights. Although I may be wrong about that, if I'm not, can we
please stop providing those who are inclined to attack us with
extra ammunition?</rant>
john
pr
--
Congress mailing list
Congress@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/congress
