The IETF's problems

[James Seng]

It is good to be inconsistent. Different areas, different wgs, different 
requirements. Some can have one, some can have more then one.

-James Seng

todd glassey wrote:

> The problem is that this is not consistent across all WG's - And AD's are
> really the last word still on whether a competitive WG was created.
> 
> What I am trying to illustrate here Spencer is that the really fair process
> involves creating an initiative based on the ability to field a team of
> vetting resources. So if there is a WG that has 200 people subscribed to it,
> how many of then actually work on any given initiative? the numbers will
> surprise you and the list archive bears all this out.
> 
> The real issue is then creating a formal requirement for all WG's to
> participate in the process equally and allow for any number of initiatives
> as long as the work gets done.
> 
> Todd
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer at mcsr-labs.org>
> To: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:20 AM
> Subject: Re: The IETF's problems
> 
> 
> 
>>Ummm, but we DO have competing documents. I think we're more likely
>>to do them in parallel working groups (see IMPP/SIMPLE/XMPP for
>>running code), and that's probably better anyway (less mud-slinging
>>within a working group), but don't even START on how many IPv6
>>transition mechanisms we have, or how many MANETs we have, or ...
>>
>>Spencer
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
>>To: "Melinda Shore" <mshore at cisco.com>; "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
>><iljitsch at muada.com>
>>Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:20 AM
>>Subject: Re: The IETF's problems
>>
>>
>>
>>>Melinda - All -
>>>I have a question, and that is "do you consider the IETF's not formally
>>>allowing more than one standard track item per/WG per/initiative-scope"
> 
> a
> 
>>>problem?, because I do, and I consider it a serious one at that. What I
> 
> am
> 
>>>referring to is the fundamental issue of whether WG's should be allowed
> 
> to
> 
>>>limit the number of initiatives on any one track to one, and my take is
>>
>>that
>>
>>>the answer here is NO.
>>>
>>>My reasons for asking this are that RFC2026 and 2223 as well as 2418 all
>>>talk about the scope and process of the standards model, but none of
> 
> them
> 
>>>really have any process for one effort to supersede another unless that
>>>effort is done by the people "owning" that spot originally. There are no
>>>"hostile takeover guidelines" or processes, and that means that any
>>>evolution of challenge of a commercially used protocol has to have the
>>>blessings of the WG Chair and those that already own that standing in a
> 
> WG
> 
>>>(This of course pertains to existing protocols predominantly).
>>>
>>>So look - here is an example, Say I have a protocol for "Whiz-Banging"
> 
> and
> 
>>>there is already a protocol on track inside a WG that Whiz-Bangs but in
> 
> a
> 
>>>different manner. So the question is whether the IETF can support two or
>>>more Whiz-Banging implementations, or only one, because if the answer is
>>>"only one" then we need to also have a method for how would anyone
>>
>>introduce
>>
>>>the second Whiz-Banging protocol to the IETF to compete with the other?
>>>
>>>The problem is that the answer is today that functionally that this will
>>>never happen. And it is because it is very very unlikely that the folks
>>
>>with
>>
>>>their Whiz-Banging Protocol are going to want to roll-over and die...
>>>
>>>So then what happens??? The challenging Whiz-Banger is submitted to the
>>
>>I-D
>>
>>>staff as a disclosure. The I-D staff go to the WG Chair who makes a
>>
>>judgment
>>
>>>that they will not allow that protocol to harm the one that has already
>>>gotten investment from them and the others in their WG, so now the WG
>>
>>Chair
>>
>>>takes an active role in suppressing the challenging effort. But say the
>>
>>I-D
>>
>>>issues get past the WG Chair, so then perhaps with the current model the
>>
>>I-D
>>
>>>staff also decide that they don't want to publish this draft because it
>>>competes with an already in-process or existing standard or
>>
>>standards-track
>>
>>>participant. So this is yet another hurdle to publication and an issue.
> 
> So
> 
>>>now they as well are part of a restraint of trade development process as
>>>well.
>>>
>>>So the question simply is where does this end?  Just how does the IETF
>>
>>allow
>>
>>>for a competitive effort, since anything else seems to have serious
> 
> legal
> 
>>>issues with restraint of market development (the building of standards
> 
> is
> 
>>a
>>
>>>key part of this). Or is this just not of importance to this IETF?
>>>
>>>Todd Glassey
>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch at muada.com>
>>>To: "Melinda Shore" <mshore at cisco.com>
>>>Cc: <problem-statement at alvestrand.no>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:35 AM
>>>Subject: Re: The IETF's problems
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On zondag, jul 20, 2003, at 19:28 Europe/Amsterdam, Melinda Shore
> 
> wrote:
> 
>>>>>The discussion itself isn't doing much to distill the topic
>>>>>down to document text, and we need to stay focused.  Do you
>>>>>feel that existing text regarding scope in the problem
>>>>>statement document is inadequate?
>>>>
>>>>Not sure what you mean by scope.
>>>>
>>>>However, many of the "root" problems in the problems draft aren't that
>>>>fundamental. The three most fundamental problems I see are:
>>>>
>>>>- the IETF doesn't know what it wants to be: a "real" standards
>>>>organization or some kind of a grass roots movement
>>>>- inability to make decisions other than just wait until there is
>>>>agreement or come up with convoluted processes that only work because
>>>>people are forced to interact until they somehow solve the problem
>>>>- inability to manage resources effectively and efficiently
>>>>
>>>>Iljitsch
>>>>
>>>
> 
> 
>