A reminder from the Tao: "One fact that confuses many novices is that the face-to-face WG meetings are much less important in the IETF than they are in most other organizations. Any decision made at a face-to-face meeting must also gain consensus on the WG 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. Finally, WG meetings aren't "drafting sessions", as they are in some other standards bodies: in the IETF, drafting is done elsewhere." In other words, it wasn't over in Vancouver. I'd like to know if this draft is being ramroaded through, or whether those doing so are novices unaware of how the IETF traditionally operates. Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ ________________________________________ From: ietf [ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter [brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: 13 December 2013 01:54 To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice [..] > And when I look at the IAB website, I am bemused. The IAB is calling > for papers for a conference on this precise topic, to be held in three > months, by which time you want this I-D to be signed, sealed and > delivered. Yes - this is a statment of principle. We can continue to waste time wordsmithing, or we can just put it out there and save bits. So that the IAB can wave it at all participants and say > 'Discussion over'? Or what? The discussion of the principle *was* over in Vancouver. Workshops, and IETF WGs, have to apply the principle to actual technology. > It seems to me that this I-D is an ideal candidate to be presented and > discussed at the conference after which, the IAB can produced a > carefully considered document. I hope the workshop will be discussing specific technology, or at least specific technical guidelines, not wordsmithing the general principle. On 13/12/2013 01:37, Stewart Bryant wrote: > I should add to this response that Dave Crocker > proposed that we pull back on this BCP and > explicitly consider its impact in each of our > working groups. I strongly disagree. That detailed consideration should follow *after* the general principle has been committed to the RFC repository. Otherwise we will simply enter a maze of looping discussions. Brian