-----Original Message----- >From: Douglas Otis <dotis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Jul 24, 2006 7:24 AM >To: todd glassey <tglassey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: netwrk stuff > >On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 06:51 -0700, todd glassey wrote: > >> The question as to why that initiative's process was stalled would >> have to be answered to be fair. One would have to take into >> consideration whether the underlying technologies were the issue, >> those undertaking the effort abandoned it, or whether it was the WG >> and AD who had failed to properly marshal their WG Vetters to complete >> this effort. > >The completion of documents, and the closing of WGs remains within the >competence of the IETF. Beyond describing the intended use and the >vetting initially achieved, there is little benefit derived revisiting a >document unless a change is required. How so ? - this is a statement of objectivity or the lack of it more accurately. > When a change is required, the >affected document should be marked as updated or replaced, where again >the intended use and the vetting initially achieved should once again be >noted. There may be issues with that. One of the things that the IETF has not dealt with is the use of the IETF's processes as weapons against others with less presence or power within the IETF WG's - the problem is that not everyone here is a nice-person - some are actually really bad people who are here intentionally to screw others who don't agree with them or who have opinions that are dangerous to initiatives or the the political framework of the IETF. Bluntly the IETF has grossly failed in being either Open or Fair and Frank these Ar what need to be addressed. The IETF's processes are best described as a twisted-fantasy through loophole land. They don't serve to make standards honest and fair but rather impossible for a mere mortal to participate with and that is more offensive to the world than the nasty language I used in describing the failures of this and the previous IETF's in coming to grips with what the IETF has become - a haven for career standards participants who need to be somewhere to justify their status within their sponsors. > >Designations of Experimental seems to be an indication of a vetting >level. BCP versus Information also seems to be an indication of a >document having undergone different vetting. Clarify the initial >vetting (the related confidence the organization is willing to initially >signify). This clarification can be conveyed by noting the intended use. >Conveying how popular a particular document has become in subsequent >years has proved either outside the competence or the concern of the >IETF. > >While as a matter of pride the IETF may wish to place accolades upon >popular documents, such efforts will likely be a distraction and provide >little benefit. These efforts could be seen as attempting lead the >parade by running in front of the crowd. While popular documents are >indicative of having done a good job, very few documents involving >popular use remain static. > >> Since the IETF has said it needs to be smart about what projects and >> initiatives it undertakes, then it should want as much assurance >> up-front as possible. That said when a formal project is proposed it >> should be well enough defined and documented, and have commitment >> formally from those who are the core of the Initiative's Vetting Team. >... > >Is there some benefit derived revising documents where the intended use >has not changed? Those deploying applications based upon these >documents will separately publish their own conclusions by way of >call-outs. The IETF has made the call-out process difficult, and this >should be improved. > > >> I think the way to address whether deprecation is some level of use in >> the world. Set a use minimum for any protocol - and anyone that falls >> below that use level - is deprecated. This way the IETF active >> standards track the Internet's tastes and desires since it is the >> Internet that the IETF is to track... But rather would need other than >> true deprecation - lets just change their names to "Reference and >> Active" Standards. Reference are any non-active Standards. Active >> Standards are those that are voted (did I really say that?) by the >> IESG to track the Industry's use. > >This seems to suggest competency and popularity are synonymous. There >should be at least four levels maintained by industry when using these >documents. > >1) Current (development) >2) Stable (production) >3) Deprecated (still supported) >4) Obsolete (not supported) > >Current is simply the latest. This output may never become designated >as being Stable. Stable indicates few issues are unresolved by several >implementations. Deprecated indicates modes or features will no longer >be supported in future versions. Obsolete indicates that interchange is >no longer assured. > >It seems the industry and not the IETF should make these >classifications. The results of interchange testing is the determining >factor and this is not an area handled by the IETF. There will always >be a company that does something different. If company X happens to >have a large install base, how does that affect the ratings? There >could be separate ratings indicated by company X. > > >> This review should be done annually at one of the meetings as a >> process model and the level of penetration of any protocol needs to be >> factored into the equation somehow. > >Why? What would be the benefit? What information is used? > > >> > Note that we already have this policy, although it applied >> > erratically by >> >> In closing lets put blame for a failed project where it belongs... in >> the WG Chair's lap. I think there is a fundamental failing in the >> mindset of the IETF and that is that "the failings of the WG Vetters >> to come to consensus documents the failure of the WG Chairs for not >> better controlling their resources or projects". > >The lack of substantial benefits for pursuing a meaningless >administrative effort may explain the mindset. Instead, the IETF should >attempt to facilitate a call-out that can easily track Current, Stable, >Deprecated, or Obsolete by each company or distribution. Many of these >protocols involve a compilation of many RFCs. Using an overlay as >described by the SRD draft, for example, would allow a >Name.Serial-number approach where there would be real benefits derived. > >Focus on describing the intended use and providing a serialized >reference to track the evolution of the change process. Don't spend any >time going from three levels to two or one. The industry must be >allowed to track at least four levels of use, but leave this to the >industry. The IETF should simply attempt to facilitate this tracking >and clarify the intended use. > >-Doug > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf