At 15:56 30-05-2012, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task
Force'
<draft-hoffman-tao4677bis-15.txt> as Informational RFC
In the Introduction Section:
"This will give them a warm, fuzzy feeling and enable them to
make the meeting and the Working Group discussions more
productive for everyone."
Reading 51 pages may give people who are a bit stale a warm, fuzzy
feeling. I don't think that is what newcomers seek. Reading this
draft does not make the meeting or Working Group discussions more
productive except for people who have been around before November, 2008.
Section 3.2.1 mentions "ISOC (Internet Society)". Didn't ISOC
rebrand itself to "Internet Society"?
"The ISOC is one of the major unsung heroes of the Internet."
This sounds like a line from the marketing department.
According to www.ietf.org, the "Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) is an organized activity of the Internet Society
(ISOC)". This draft places ISOC at the top of the hierarchy. Does
that mean that ISOC runs the IETF?
In Section 3.2.2:
"It administers the process according to the rules and procedures
that have been ratified by the ISOC Board of Trustees."
Isn't the process (and rules) documented through BCPs? Are the BCPs
ratified by the ISOC Board of Trustees?
"Because of this, one of the main reasons that the IESG might block
something that was produced in a WG is that the result did not really
gain consensus in the IETF as a whole, that is, among all of the
Working Groups in all Areas."
The above does not seem correct to me. All working groups do not
participate through this mailing list. This list is more of a venue
for the IETF as a whole, i.e. its participants and not its Working
Groups, to provide substantive comments about a draft during a Last
Call. These substantive comments tends to include "+1" as it is
viewed as a way for some participants to make their vote heard. The
origins of the "+1" can be traced back to another community, which is
unrelated to the IETF, where contributors actually vote.
In Section 3.2.3:
"Approves the appointment of the IANA"
Isn't IANA more of a U.S. Government decision?
In Section 3.2.5:
"Once an RFC is published, it is never revised."
That can be debatable [1].
In Section 3.2.7:
"Few IETF participants come into contact with the IETF Trust,
which is a good sign that they are quietly doing their job."
This sounds more like marketing.
In Section 3.3:
'People who would like to "get technical" may also join the IETF
general discussion list'
People who would like to get a vague idea of IETF politics may also
join the IETF general discussion lists. Some of the topics discussed
on that mailing list are:
- What is a "MUST"
- Future Handling of the Blue Sheets
- IETF aging
- Proposed IESG Statements (not even mentioned in the draft)
- Is IPv6 bad news
- Why is DNS broken
- A proxy war between the IETF and the ITU
- Shared IPv4 address space
I wouldn't describe the above-mentioned topics as being of cosmic significance.
In Section 4:
"primary goal is to reinvigorate the WGs to get their tasks done"
After watching two people taking shots at low flying ducks, my guess
is that such action does have an invigorating effect. Those ducks
must have read the current version of the Tao to learn the inner
workings. There were a couple of unfortunate accidents [1].
"although IASA kicks in additional funds for things such as the audio
broadcast of some Working Group sessions.
This is an unnecessary detail. How important is it to know that some
body within the IETF called IASA is paying for that?
"There is no exposition hall"
Isn't there a plan to have an exposition during meetings?
In Section 4.5:
"These are used for long-term archival purpose to show how many
people came to a particular meeting and, in rare cases, exactly
who showed up."
What's the consensus on "Blue Sheets" these days?
In Section 5.2:
"Any decision made at a face-to-face meeting must also gain
consensus on the WG mailing list."
Are decisions taken during meetings or only on the mailing list?
"There are numerous examples of important decisions made in
WG meetings that are later overturned on the mailing list,
often because someone who couldn't attend the meeting pointed
out a serious flaw in the logic used to come to the decision."
The above does not seem correct.
In Section 7.3:
'[RFC2223], "Instructions to RFC Authors", describes the submission format.'
Isn't RFC 2223 considered as Historic? I doubt that the RFC editor
uses that RFC.
In Section 7.4:
"To become an Internet Standard, an RFC must have multiple
interoperable implementations and the unused features in the
Proposed Standard must be removed; there are additional
requirements listed in [BCP9]."
Is this correct? Unused features (the MAY) are not removed in practice.
In B.1:
"P4. Participation in the IETF or of its WGs is not fee-based or
organizationally defined, but is based upon self-identification
and active participation by individuals."
What is the meaning of self-identification?
In B.2:
"P7. Dissent, complaint, and appeal are a consequence of the IETF's
nature and should be regarded as normal events, but ultimately
it is a fact of life that certain decisions cannot be
effectively appealed."
Is this a roundabout way of saying that a person can appeal but it
won't change anything?
"P10. A community process is used to select the leadership."
It's not a community process in my opinion (see NomCom selection process).
"P11. Leaders are empowered to make the judgment that rough consensus
has been demonstrated. Without formal membership, there are no
formal rules for consensus."
This is like using the draft as a backdoor to say something. It
looks like accountability is being glossed over. I suggest renaming
B.2 as Animal Farm [1].
In B.3:
"P14. Parts of the process that have proved impractical should be
removed or made optional."
Why is the above in this draft?
In B.5:
"P30. Standards Track and Best Current Practice documents must be
subject to IETF wide rough consensus (Last Call process)."
Is it "rough consensus" or "consensus"?
Some parts of this draft are well-written. Other parts comes out as
nostalgia instead of providing a view of the inner workings of the
IETF. Overall this draft could be more effective in helping
newcomers if it was reorganized and if it used a language which is
more accessible to non-English speakers [2]. There is truth in
advertising and what the IETF would like people to believe. If the
objective is the later, it has been met. There is a long coverage of
the meeting details. That can be traced back to a RFC written in
1993. In the old days meetings could have been considered as "the
IETF". I would describe meetings more as a landmark nowadays than
being "the IETF".
I don't think I know what "the IETF" is. Some of the people on this
mailing list have been active in the IETF for the last 19 years and
they may have a better idea of what the IETF universe must be. If
this is their idea of a better idea, I'll say "ok". There is a world
out there. That world has a different view of the IETF. After
reading this draft that world will still have a disconnected view of
the IETF. It could be said that "that world" is not important, that
newcomers are not important, that those who have built the Internet
know better.
I am going to file the minority report on this draft before the one
[1] that sometimes does that. BTW, I don't see the "please be
patient with the old folks" advice in this draft. Is it politically
incorrect to say that?
Regards,
-sm
1. Insert smiley
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7iS4aZHas