> At 13:32 29/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >They are both published, and obviously the consensus document is the > >one on the standards track. It exactly an example of the IETF > >publishing a minority opinion. Obviously, we couldn't publish two > >standards for the same bits. > > Dear Brian, > this is why we need to find ways to help consensual standard > publication first. > The problem is worst if the document claims to be a BCP. > > >>This case is when two IETF groups have different opinions. > >>The case I refer to is when an SSDO consensus opposes an IETF-WG > >>consensus, > > > >That doesn't affect what the IETF publishes. The IETF publishes the > >documents that it reaches consensus on, after considering all > >contributions. Liaisons from other SDOs are considered. That doesn't > >mean we take them as instructions or have any obligations. > > We should not be here to develop non-interoperability. > However we know that competition may lead to some oddities. > This is the theme of RFC 3869. > So you said: 1) we shouldn't develop anything that disagrees with anything else (implying external consensus as well as internal consensus). -AND- 2) we should support spreading minority opinions, and the minority opinion should be of the same status as the main opinion. That position is untenable. First you complained about the lack of minority opinion, then the difference in status, then the fact that everyone didn't just hang around waiting for everyone to agree. Perhaps instead of repeated disagreement with people's positions, you should offer a clear concise vision of your own. As far as finding a "consensual standard," in anything I believe an open mike in coordination with rough consensus and running code will always be the best answer. > >When we become aware of another SDO working on an > alternative solution, > >we normally attempt to engage in dialogue, but there is no algorithm > >for how that dialogue will terminate. > > "normally" should be replaced by "SHOULD". > Why? So people who disagree internally can form an external body to essentially propigate a DOS situation on our progress? So instead of focusing on the technical issue at hand we can have engineers and scientists (mostly) concerned with politics and diplomacy? I do not agree at all. > All what I call for is not even to engage in a dialog, but to > respect others and not refuse the dialog. And a way to > politely but clearly address the possible non-technical > motivations. I think an Ombudsman can help that. And that the > minority position is the way to inform that he has been > informed and taken the issue seriously. The impact is only to > make the things even. Disfavors no one, helps everyone. > Who is not permitted to make their voice heard on an IETF list? Are you saying non-technical matters should in any way trump technical issues? I don't believe that idea will find much of a home in this forum. > >If people from another SDO wish to submit a draft for > publication as an > >RFC, I can't see any reason why the "RFC 3248 approach won't work. > >I can't see any need to add more process than we already have. > > The RFC 3248 approach is internal to IETF. > > Other SSDOs have their own charters and agenda. We are > talking of interoperability. When IETF disregards others, it > is lucky others pay attention and delegate a resource they > need. Forcing others to become more competent in a whole IETF > area they are not interested in to publish a document so "the > better win", just to prevent a lobby from creating a > profitable interoperability conflict with other commercial or > non-profit/publicly funded SSDO, is not the way I see global > networking. Please consider RFC 3869. > > I may be wrong though. I don't know about wrong, but seemingly political. It seems you've managed to find fault in many other's statements (sometimes to the point of contradicting your own), and succeded in prognosticating doomsday scenarios all without suggesting a proactive response or outcome in anyway. -Tom
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf