On 29/07/16 14:56, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > Alia, > > Thanks for the thoughtful response. Submitting a draft is indeed a > reasonably quick process. But that is only the starting point. My > IETF experience is mainly in the area of email authentication so > perhaps that colors my perception. I can’t think of anyone that > didn’t walk away from the MARID working group (SPF and SenderID) > without a sour taste in their mouth. It can be summed up by saying > politics and religious wars. I look at how long it took for DKIM to > go from draft to standard – without looking up the exact dates > I’ll call it something around 8 years. ADSP was a painful > experience all the way around and a time suck. I’ll not go into > DMARC which has become implemented widely yet ran into fierce > resistance within portions of the IETF community. I’m part of the > DMARC team that came out with it and the goal was to open up > something that was working among private peers so that any person > organization of any size could benefit. Instead of working to help > address the corner cases, there was an intense effort on the part of > some to kill it off and/or stonewall despite increasing acceptance > and implementation in the wild. FWIW, I don't think the above is a sufficiently complete description of the DMARC situation. I do get that that was the perception of some DMARC proponents but it ignores the fact that DMARC specifically affects how the IETF does work. I do fully agree wrt ADSP but I think in retrospect even those who were proponents of ADSP would now likely agree it was a mistake. I could similarly quibble about what you say of DKIM, but am thankful that I wasn't involved in MARID at all;-) So I figure there are a wide range of reasonable opinions that could be expressed about many bits of work done or not done in the IETF. I think a conclusion to reach is that sometimes it's just hard when one brings work from a smaller group to a group as broad and diverse as the IETF, and that does fairly often badly affect proposals that come from smaller OSS or operator groups. S. > > It appears that rather than trying to find ways to reduce friction, > the attitude is that people must dedicate their lives to the IETF > alter in order to get things done. Part of this is because to some > extent IETF is driven by people who are paid by their organizations > to be full time IETFers. My company allows my participation in IETF > working groups (as well as other places) but does not “sponsor†> it. This isn’t a complaint but rather, recognition of reality. Is > it any wonder that so many people who get involved in the IETF > because of one particular thing end up walking away from standards > work? > > Perhaps my perspective is somewhat jaundiced yet I continue to > participate in working groups. > > I’ve been working on some ideas (surprisingly not in the email or > security arenas) that would at first glance appear to be naturals for > bringing to the IETF yet I am hesitant because I would likely expire > of old age before seeing them get through the process. Life is too > short. > > Just a few thoughts before I duck and run for cover from an > anticipated backlash. > > Mike > > From: Alia Atlas [mailto:akatlas@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, July 29, > 2016 9:04 AM To: MH Michael Hammer (5304) Cc: Melinda Shore; Brian E > Carpenter; Suzanne Woolf; IETF discussion list Subject: Re: bettering > open source involvement > > Hi Melinda & Michael, > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:51 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) > <MHammer@xxxxxx<mailto:MHammer@xxxxxx>> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- From: ietf >> [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx<mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>] On >> Behalf Of Melinda Shore Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 10:31 PM To: >> Brian E Carpenter; Suzanne Woolf Cc: IETF discussion list Subject: >> Re: bettering open source involvement >> >> On 7/28/16 1:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> And there's our problem, right there. Protocols without APIs are >>> pretty much useless these days. IPv6 without a socket API would >>> have been an abject failure. Without RFC 2133, RFC 2292 and >>> their successors, who knows how the POSIX and Winsock support for >>> IPv6 would have turned out? >> >> Not specifying APIs in the IETF clearly doesn't mean that there are >> no APIs, clearly. >> >> I'm certainly open to the possibility that we start tackling APIs >> but I'm not sure it's a terrific idea. For one thing, we already >> have too much work. For another, I'm not sure we'd produce >> particularly good APIs. It's a different skill from developing and >> specifying network protocols. And thirdly, I'm not convinced that >> the people implementing our protocols would want IETF- developed >> APIs. >> >> This is completely subjective but my own sense is that the #1 >> problem we have related to open source projects we take years to >> produce specifications. >> > > This! +1000 > > That certainly aligns with what I've heard as well, but can I poke > into a bit more. I know that, for instance, I can get a draft from > written to the RFC Editor in 6 weeks, if it isn't controversial. > Most of that time is to allow adequate review at the WG, IETF Last > Call, directorates and IESG levels. > > My sense is that the rest of the time goes to the WG process which > has aspects of: a) Getting people interested in the idea b) Having > folks cycle in and out of paying attention and commenting c) Having > authors/editors be distracted and unresponsive. d) Having WG Chairs > be distracted/unresponsive and want more discussion first. e) > Avoiding having actively hard discussions about contentious points. > f) (sometimes) waiting for implementations to sanity-check > > It feels like a WG group or topic in a fixed area with agreement > could get past many of these slow-downs - if there were general > agreement and a culture in that WG of doing so. > > We aren't, after all, doomed to repeat the delays of the past :-) > which isn't to say that this would be easy. > > What do you think? Are there factors that I'm missing? Is there a > technical topic where there could be enthusiasm to push? > > Regards, Alia >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>