From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Wed Dec 3 09:24:25 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16098 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:24:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFFD61B90; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:24:08 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751C561B8A for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:24:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=acm.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD 4.9) id 1ARXvC-000AgV-8w for problem-statement@alvestrand.no; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:24:06 +0000 Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:23:32 +0900 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Avri Doria To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <45D27647-259C-11D8-A44D-000393CC2112@acm.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Subject: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Regarding the 2nd Last Call issue on "IETF Problem Statement" (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-issue- statement-05.txt) After reviewing the issues brought up during the 2nd Last Call on this document the co-chairs believe that there were no issues related to those brought up in the 1st Last Call brought up that warrant going though another editing cycle on this document. We believe that at this time there is rough consensus for passing the document on to the General Area AD for IESG consideration. This is not to say that there weren't some old and some new issues brought up. These issues, while they did not pertain to a 2nd Last Call, will be passed on to the General Area AD. Some of the issues were: - Structural Issues with the document such as too long section titles - Wordsmithing issues ------------------ - Some of the description of problems are not sufficiently brutal or blunt enough and don't have the full impact they should have. - Some of the descriptions of problems are too brutal and blunt and perhaps give the impression of being more real then they really are. I.e. the document does not adequately differentiate between problems as being perceived and problems as being real. These two poles were discussed at length during the year during which the document was being developed, and the wording in the document is a compromise meant to fall between the two extreme positions. The introduction does mention that work is based on a set of perceived problems. ------------------ Further Issues include: - that WG chairs are not specifically mentioned among those who can be responsible for procedural blocks. - that the selection of WG chairs is often not an open process - that the IETF culture may be inappropriate for its purpose and not merely misunderstood. - that there are no membership qualifications - that a comparison to other organizations has not been done to find better models for the organization - that the steps WG should go through are no sufficiently defined - that WG rules and especially document format are obsolete. - that there is a lack of formal recognition for those in the WG who do the work Some of these issues had been discussed at length during the year this document has been in preparation, and the comments did not offer a significantly new or different approach then had been offered before. ----------------- Our thanks to everyone who participated in contributing their views on the IETF and its process, to those who commented during the two last calls, to the editing team and the editor. Melinda and Avri (co-chairs) From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Wed Dec 3 09:42:15 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA16833 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:42:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A10B61B90; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:41:58 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.116]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1BC061B90 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:41:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from tsg (84.san-jose-09-10rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.195.84]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12) with SMTP id <200312031441531120007unue>; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:41:53 +0000 Message-ID: <007601c3b9aa$f5157970$010aff0a@tsg> From: "todd glassey" To: "Avri Doria" , References: <45D27647-259C-11D8-A44D-000393CC2112@acm.org> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:37:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Subject: Re: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list Reply-To: todd glassey List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Avri, You still have not dealt with the issues of the release process or in validating that anyone submitting IP to the IETF has the legal ability to do so... Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Avri Doria" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 6:23 AM Subject: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc > Regarding the 2nd Last Call issue on "IETF Problem Statement" > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem -issue- > statement-05.txt) > > After reviewing the issues brought up during the 2nd Last Call on this > document the co-chairs believe that there were no issues related to > those brought up in the 1st Last Call brought up that warrant going > though another editing cycle on this document. We believe that at this > time there is rough consensus for passing the document on to the > General Area AD for IESG consideration. > > This is not to say that there weren't some old and some new issues > brought up. These issues, while they did not pertain to a 2nd Last > Call, will be passed on to the General Area AD. > > Some of the issues were: > > - Structural Issues with the document such as too long section titles > - Wordsmithing issues > > ------------------ > > - Some of the description of problems are not sufficiently brutal or > blunt enough and don't have the full impact they should have. > - Some of the descriptions of problems are too brutal and blunt and > perhaps give the impression of being more real then they really are. > I.e. the document does not adequately differentiate between problems as > being perceived and problems as being real. > > These two poles were discussed at length during the year during > which the document was being developed, and the wording in the document > is a compromise meant to fall between the two extreme positions. The > introduction does mention that work is based on a set of perceived > problems. > > ------------------ > > Further Issues include: > > - that WG chairs are not specifically mentioned among those who can be > responsible for procedural blocks. > - that the selection of WG chairs is often not an open process > - that the IETF culture may be inappropriate for its purpose and not > merely misunderstood. > - that there are no membership qualifications > - that a comparison to other organizations has not been done to find > better models for the organization > - that the steps WG should go through are no sufficiently defined > - that WG rules and especially document format are obsolete. > - that there is a lack of formal recognition for those in the WG who do > the work > > Some of these issues had been discussed at length during the year this > document has been in preparation, and the comments did not offer a > significantly new or different approach then had been offered before. > > ----------------- > > Our thanks to everyone who participated in contributing their views on > the IETF and its process, to those who commented during the two last > calls, to the editing team and the editor. > > Melinda and Avri > (co-chairs) > > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Wed Dec 3 09:56:26 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA17374 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E5B61B90; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:56:09 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu (klutz.cs.utk.edu [160.36.56.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A3E661B8A for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:56:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71AD5AFCCE; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:56:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24812-14; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:56:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36034AFBB4; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:56:05 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <45D27647-259C-11D8-A44D-000393CC2112@acm.org> References: <45D27647-259C-11D8-A44D-000393CC2112@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Keith Moore Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 09:56:37 -0500 To: Avri Doria X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, Keith Moore Subject: Re: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Dec 3, 2003, at 9:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > After reviewing the issues brought up during the 2nd Last Call on this > document the co-chairs believe that there were no issues related to > those brought up in the 1st Last Call brought up that warrant going > though another editing cycle on this document. We believe that at > this time there is rough consensus for passing the document on to the > General Area AD for IESG consideration. Well, I believe you're wrong about that, and I specifically object to the chairs' moving this document forward without due consideration of Last Call comments. As it seems a bit ridiculous to appeal to IESG an action to send a document to IESG that IESG probably feels it can't really object to (since it criticizes IESG), I'm somewhat at a loss as to what to do next, but I believe this action is highly inappropriate, and it calls this entire WG's output into doubt. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Wed Dec 3 11:34:07 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA22449 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:34:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F044661B90; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:33:50 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C4D61B8A for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:33:49 +0100 (CET) Received: by newdev.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id E55E6930AC; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:33:47 -0500 (EST) To: avri@acm.org, problem-statement@alvestrand.no In-Reply-To: <45D27647-259C-11D8-A44D-000393CC2112@acm.org> Message-Id: <20031203163347.E55E6930AC@newdev.harvard.edu> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:33:47 -0500 (EST) From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Subject: Re: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no thanks for the good (and not easy) work in chairing this effort! Scott From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Wed Dec 3 17:30:20 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA12934 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:30:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D451861B92; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:29:59 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from pguin2.txc.com (transfire.transwitch.com [208.5.237.254]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F1361B83 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:29:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from txc.com ([172.17.0.134]) by pguin2.txc.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id hB3MTu027652; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:29:56 -0500 Message-ID: <3FCE63E3.2010907@txc.com> Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:29:55 -0500 From: Alex Conta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Avri Doria References: <45D27647-259C-11D8-A44D-000393CC2112@acm.org> In-Reply-To: <45D27647-259C-11D8-A44D-000393CC2112@acm.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms040706080100020109040608" Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms040706080100020109040608 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Avri, The fact that some of the issues were discussed before, at length or not, does not change the fact that they were not mentioned in the document which was in Last Call. Not addressing those issues in the document means that some of the Last Call comments remain unresolved. Regards, Alex Avri Doria wrote: > Regarding the 2nd Last Call issue on "IETF Problem Statement" > (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-issue- > statement-05.txt) > > After reviewing the issues brought up during the 2nd Last Call on this > document the co-chairs believe that there were no issues related to > those brought up in the 1st Last Call brought up that warrant going > though another editing cycle on this document. We believe that at this > time there is rough consensus for passing the document on to the > General Area AD for IESG consideration. > > This is not to say that there weren't some old and some new issues > brought up. These issues, while they did not pertain to a 2nd Last > Call, will be passed on to the General Area AD. > > Some of the issues were: > > - Structural Issues with the document such as too long section titles > - Wordsmithing issues > > ------------------ > > - Some of the description of problems are not sufficiently brutal or > blunt enough and don't have the full impact they should have. > - Some of the descriptions of problems are too brutal and blunt and > perhaps give the impression of being more real then they really are. > I.e. the document does not adequately differentiate between problems as > being perceived and problems as being real. > > These two poles were discussed at length during the year during > which the document was being developed, and the wording in the document > is a compromise meant to fall between the two extreme positions. The > introduction does mention that work is based on a set of perceived > problems. > > ------------------ > > Further Issues include: > > - that WG chairs are not specifically mentioned among those who can be > responsible for procedural blocks. > - that the selection of WG chairs is often not an open process > - that the IETF culture may be inappropriate for its purpose and not > merely misunderstood. > - that there are no membership qualifications > - that a comparison to other organizations has not been done to find > better models for the organization > - that the steps WG should go through are no sufficiently defined > - that WG rules and especially document format are obsolete. > - that there is a lack of formal recognition for those in the WG who do > the work > > Some of these issues had been discussed at length during the year this > document has been in preparation, and the comments did not offer a > significantly new or different approach then had been offered before. > > ----------------- > > Our thanks to everyone who participated in contributing their views on > the IETF and its process, to those who commented during the two last > calls, to the editing team and the editor. > > Melinda and Avri > (co-chairs) > > > > --------------ms040706080100020109040608 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIINdDCC Ay4wggKXoAMCAQICEQDSdi6NFAw9fbKoJV2v7g11MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAgUAMF8xCzAJBgNV BAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjE3MDUGA1UECxMuQ2xhc3MgMSBQdWJs aWMgUHJpbWFyeSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTAeFw05ODA1MTIwMDAwMDBaFw0w ODA1MTIyMzU5NTlaMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVy aVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0 b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNp Z24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRh dGVkMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQC7WkSKBBa7Vf0DeootlE8VeDa4DUqy b5xUv7zodyqdufBou5XZMUFweoFLuUgTVi3HCOGEQqvAopKrRFyqQvCCDgLpL/vCO7u+yScK XbawNkIztW5UiE+HSr8Z2vkV6A+HthzjzMaajn9qJJLj/OBluqexfu/J2zdqyErICQbkmQID AQABo3wwejARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCAQYwRwYDVR0gBEAwPjA8BgtghkgBhvhFAQcBATAt MCsGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBMA8GA1UdEwQI MAYBAf8CAQAwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAgUAA4GBAIi4Nzvd2pQ3AK2qn+GB AXEekmptL/bxndPKZDjcG5gMB4ZbhRVqD7lJhaSV8Rd9Z7R/LSzdmkKewz60jqrlCwbe8lYq +jPHvhnXU0zDvcjjF7WkSUJj7MKmFw9dWBpJPJBcVaNlIAD9GCDlX4KmsaiSxVhqwY0DPOvD zQWikK5uMIIFHTCCBIagAwIBAgIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADCB zDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3Jw LiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0Eg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDAeFw0wMzEwMDcw MDAwMDBaFw0wNDEwMDYyMzU5NTlaMIIBCzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAd BgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5j b20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNV BAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAx IC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2aWNlMRMwEQYDVQQDFApBbGV4IENvbnRhMR0wGwYJKoZI hvcNAQkBFg5hY29udGFAdHhjLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEB ALgW3oel96XxVMcdn78gvsKs3glm42IQbSNsch1nqnh8iFVikuJIrnugQTxaihWQwLAnFt3W SNoFHx4srCYxq2mdpbrrUeM6NlplpYe6PWT78jtkpw8oceTZX77ADPmUiskRheblLBuqr7DP de7MG3UreBFT7kAh4FvEPUfnI5KGG5LwowPfGHtcik27wq59ULNYBsty2j+gEBpcf2Jet1n9 9FmJtCE2V0JhIe/zMe3y5gxSzkCUvxNMSwSzH5mt+Gvj91laacIFUvIzEVfdqnBSriieOYB4 Oacw7PGWqnmQ78UmVQrkoc+81gyeQDvnMsZ841NmaexzufJuky1rdhUCAwEAAaOCATgwggE0 MAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwgawGA1UdIASBpDCBoTCBngYLYIZIAYb4RQEHAQEwgY4wKAYIKwYBBQUH AgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9DUFMwYgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwVjAVFg5WZXJp U2lnbiwgSW5jLjADAgEBGj1WZXJpU2lnbidzIENQUyBpbmNvcnAuIGJ5IHJlZmVyZW5jZSBs aWFiLiBsdGQuIChjKTk3IFZlcmlTaWduMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIHgDAwBgpghkgBhvhF AQYHBCIWIDI1MzE2MTcwNzRhNWE1NTc5M2M3ZTg0MjY2MTI1MDI2MDMGA1UdHwQsMCowKKAm oCSGImh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL2NsYXNzMS5jcmwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAD gYEAsi/OC8pQbUyCeMa36koAIMfC533LaBKd7eU2aZ+X3DMs2xIf7fZxJTJWAqhBDSHEqyV+ BB3GIlDk8BA8JzZsDpIolNiJoETRpaeoaktM03g5QpNfcpcQGzGsI/ZPOOPpybWCEeXXZnwg XWdVF3BOIZ64NWG/RsdVEmQnIW3S0U4wggUdMIIEhqADAgECAhAMWGjNegE3IwWplbn7QjjC MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMW VmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBv c2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVy aVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMB4XDTAzMTAwNzAwMDAwMFoXDTA0MTAwNjIzNTk1OVowggELMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5W ZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UE CxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAuIGJ5IFJlZi4sTElB Qi5MVEQoYyk5ODEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTMwMQYDVQQLEypE aWdpdGFsIElEIENsYXNzIDEgLSBOZXRzY2FwZSBGdWxsIFNlcnZpY2UxEzARBgNVBAMUCkFs ZXggQ29udGExHTAbBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWDmFjb250YUB0eGMuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAuBbeh6X3pfFUxx2fvyC+wqzeCWbjYhBtI2xyHWeqeHyIVWKS 4kiue6BBPFqKFZDAsCcW3dZI2gUfHiysJjGraZ2luutR4zo2WmWlh7o9ZPvyO2SnDyhx5Nlf vsAM+ZSKyRGF5uUsG6qvsM917swbdSt4EVPuQCHgW8Q9R+cjkoYbkvCjA98Ye1yKTbvCrn1Q s1gGy3LaP6AQGlx/Yl63Wf30WYm0ITZXQmEh7/Mx7fLmDFLOQJS/E0xLBLMfma34a+P3WVpp wgVS8jMRV92qcFKuKJ45gHg5pzDs8ZaqeZDvxSZVCuShz7zWDJ5AO+cyxnzjU2Zp7HO58m6T LWt2FQIDAQABo4IBODCCATQwCQYDVR0TBAIwADCBrAYDVR0gBIGkMIGhMIGeBgtghkgBhvhF AQcBATCBjjAoBggrBgEFBQcCARYcaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL0NQUzBiBggr BgEFBQcCAjBWMBUWDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMAMCAQEaPVZlcmlTaWduJ3MgQ1BTIGluY29y cC4gYnkgcmVmZXJlbmNlIGxpYWIuIGx0ZC4gKGMpOTcgVmVyaVNpZ24wEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEB BAQDAgeAMDAGCmCGSAGG+EUBBgcEIhYgMjUzMTYxNzA3NGE1YTU1NzkzYzdlODQyNjYxMjUw MjYwMwYDVR0fBCwwKjAooCagJIYiaHR0cDovL2NybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vY2xhc3MxLmNy bDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQCyL84LylBtTIJ4xrfqSgAgx8LnfctoEp3t5TZpn5fcMyzb Eh/t9nElMlYCqEENIcSrJX4EHcYiUOTwEDwnNmwOkiiU2ImgRNGlp6hqS0zTeDlCk19ylxAb Mawj9k844+nJtYIR5ddmfCBdZ1UXcE4hnrg1Yb9Gx1USZCchbdLRTjGCBKowggSmAgEBMIHh MIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3Qg TmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNv cnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBD QSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAMWGjNegE3 IwWplbn7QjjCMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggKdMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJ KoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTAzMTIwMzIyMjk1NVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFKNuoXrNr6bFSum0 v/maclL0NIUsMFIGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFFMEMwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCA MA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMIHyBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQx geQwgeEwgcwxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBU cnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBB IEluY29ycC4gQnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFz cyAxIENBIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQCEAxY aM16ATcjBamVuftCOMIwgfQGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYHkoIHhMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJp U2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9 d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5M VEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNj cmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAMWGjNegE3IwWplbn7QjjCMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBAQUABIIBAJkjMEkfwVwzYoX+ipdK15iD94C0m6VbnBNUAvpObVZET6wWP/mODihj1Eza nTt0N0F4urTeRYKZLFUgVQgWqvml0Brsbd0RLgSgeDbzskvjqqvDuOqv/JT2ENbbs66UXTRr r0YHd87mEgBS8vniLV3z/oky7DgbVjc2+yMSwgt5Q5LUENZD1k1WNYD0FEX1xhgerwa4mRNT 8L++5Uh+9XTluvkxUeu7cJSgaCkDlCuzq+uargST04NbHpCdwnXGhAKZVMcc0SVyqMloWi8g i1XpHdnlmLA1f/LaQ8qbsjTixu3BsREdG/jJ0+O2HT6xo8Utg4hZehb+do+c5vEG9ncAAAAA AAA= --------------ms040706080100020109040608-- From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Wed Dec 3 17:38:04 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA13132 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:38:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A7161B92; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:37:46 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000C361B83 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:37:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=acm.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD 4.9) id 1ARfct-000ElC-Nw for problem-statement@alvestrand.no; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 22:37:44 +0000 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:37:08 +0900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) From: Avri Doria To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <3FCE63E3.2010907@txc.com> Message-Id: <3A97618A-25E1-11D8-A44D-000393CC2112@acm.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Subject: Re: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Alex, This was a Second Last Call and as with all Second Last Calls was to be restricted to issues that were brought up in the First Last Call. But since the issues were brought up, they will be reported to the IESG. a. On torsdag, dec 4, 2003, at 07:29 Asia/Seoul, Alex Conta wrote: > Avri, > > The fact that some of the issues were discussed before, at length or > not, does not change the fact that they were not mentioned in the > document which was in Last Call. Not addressing those issues in the > document means that some of the Last Call comments remain unresolved. > > Regards, > Alex > > Avri Doria wrote: > >> Regarding the 2nd Last Call issue on "IETF Problem Statement" >> (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-issue- >> statement-05.txt) >> After reviewing the issues brought up during the 2nd Last Call on >> this document the co-chairs believe that there were no issues >> related to those brought up in the 1st Last Call brought up that >> warrant going though another editing cycle on this document. We >> believe that at this time there is rough consensus for passing the >> document on to the General Area AD for IESG consideration. >> This is not to say that there weren't some old and some new issues >> brought up. These issues, while they did not pertain to a 2nd Last >> Call, will be passed on to the General Area AD. >> Some of the issues were: >> - Structural Issues with the document such as too long section titles >> - Wordsmithing issues >> ------------------ >> - Some of the description of problems are not sufficiently brutal or >> blunt enough and don't have the full impact they should have. >> - Some of the descriptions of problems are too brutal and blunt and >> perhaps give the impression of being more real then they really are. >> I.e. the document does not adequately differentiate between problems >> as being perceived and problems as being real. >> These two poles were discussed at length during the year during >> which the document was being developed, and the wording in the >> document is a compromise meant to fall between the two extreme >> positions. The introduction does mention that work is based on a >> set of perceived problems. >> ------------------ >> Further Issues include: >> - that WG chairs are not specifically mentioned among those who can >> be responsible for procedural blocks. >> - that the selection of WG chairs is often not an open process >> - that the IETF culture may be inappropriate for its purpose and not >> merely misunderstood. >> - that there are no membership qualifications >> - that a comparison to other organizations has not been done to find >> better models for the organization >> - that the steps WG should go through are no sufficiently defined >> - that WG rules and especially document format are obsolete. >> - that there is a lack of formal recognition for those in the WG who >> do the work >> Some of these issues had been discussed at length during the year >> this document has been in preparation, and the comments did not >> offer a significantly new or different approach then had been >> offered before. >> ----------------- >> Our thanks to everyone who participated in contributing their views >> on the IETF and its process, to those who commented during the two >> last calls, to the editing team and the editor. >> Melinda and Avri >> (co-chairs) > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Wed Dec 3 19:29:24 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17699 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 19:29:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0710861BB5; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 01:29:07 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 252D061BB4 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 01:29:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=acm.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD 4.9) id 1ARhMb-000L3L-LE for problem-statement@alvestrand.no; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:29:04 +0000 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:28:25 +0900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) From: Avri Doria To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Subject: Re: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On onsdag, dec 3, 2003, at 23:56 Asia/Seoul, Keith Moore wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2003, at 9:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> After reviewing the issues brought up during the 2nd Last Call on >> this document the co-chairs believe that there were no issues related >> to those brought up in the 1st Last Call brought up that warrant >> going though another editing cycle on this document. We believe that >> at this time there is rough consensus for passing the document on to >> the General Area AD for IESG consideration. > > Well, I believe you're wrong about that, and I specifically object to > the chairs' moving this document forward without due consideration of > Last Call comments. We had two last calls and dealt with the problems raised during the first last call with extensive discussions and changes to the document. The second last call was to review changes made because of the first last call. When this WG started one of the first issues we reached rough consensus on was that in a document like this, or the process doc for that matter, we would never be able to get full consensus and would never be able to capture all of the problems people saw or would never be able to eliminate mention of perceived problems that someone did not see. In other words, the WG agreed at that time that rough consensus would be the best we would achieve. We could cycle this document forever in a vain attempt to get full consensus as it does contain compromise, and compromise never goes down easily. > > As it seems a bit ridiculous to appeal to IESG an action to send a > document to IESG that IESG probably feels it can't really object to > (since it criticizes IESG), I'm somewhat at a loss as to what to do > next, but I believe this action is highly inappropriate, and it calls > this entire WG's output into doubt. > I disagree with three points here. - The document goes to great pains to differentiate between criticism of the IESG membership and the IESG process. While there is certainly criticism of IESG process, I feel the document is rather scrupulous in not criticizing the IESG members. - From what I know of the IESG and its members, I have no doubt that if they find something seriously wrong with the document or if in the IETF Last Call (which the room recommended in Minneapolis even though this was an Informational document) some major lack of consensus on the part of the IETF body politic is discovered, they will do their duty and send it back with one or more DISCUSS issues. In other words, I do trust that they will not be cowed by any perception some may have that this document criticizes them. - In any tehcno-political document, and the output of this WG, in my opinion, falls into this category, there is always doubt on at least someone's part. Given the review this document has gotten from the WG and will get from the IESG and the community at large I think that when it is published, assuming the IESG decides to do so, it will reflect the rough consensus of the IETF community and will reflect well on this WG. a. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Wed Dec 3 20:03:46 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19171 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 20:03:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C501F61BD6; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 02:03:27 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from psg.com (psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCFE61BD6 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 02:03:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=acm.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD 4.9) id 1ARhts-000MuB-Ky for problem-statement@alvestrand.no; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 01:03:24 +0000 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:02:50 +0900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) From: Avri Doria To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <007601c3b9aa$f5157970$010aff0a@tsg> Message-Id: <94E02CE0-25F5-11D8-A44D-000393CC2112@acm.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Subject: Re: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Problem document does deal with many of the issues that are inherent in the IETF Standards process. So while it does not explicitly get into the comparison with other SDO release processes or use the release language of these other SDOs, it does open the door to discussions about the IETF engineering and document process. In fact a BOF was held and a mailing list established for discussing the IETF Standard process as a result of some of the problem WG discussions. As for the IPR issue, there is a WG that focuses exclusively on IPR issues. I think that would be the right venue for discussions about validating those who submit IPR claims. a. On onsdag, dec 3, 2003, at 23:37 Asia/Seoul, todd glassey wrote: > Avri, > You still have not dealt with the issues of the release > process or in validating that anyone submitting IP to > the IETF has the legal ability to do so... > > Todd > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Thu Dec 4 02:50:00 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA14895 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 02:49:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61DF461BD7; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:49:40 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.116]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFC061BB5 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:49:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from tsg (94.san-jose-09-10rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.195.94]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12) with SMTP id <200312040749341120008lv3e>; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:49:35 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c3ba3a$883eea80$010aff0a@tsg> From: "todd glassey" To: "Avri Doria" , References: <94E02CE0-25F5-11D8-A44D-000393CC2112@acm.org> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:19:42 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Subject: Re: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list Reply-To: todd glassey List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Avri - the core issue the IPRights working group was to deal with was the IP issues. Right? - well if its true that the current submission model does not provide any reliable conveyance of "a right to publish the submitted materials" then the entire process if flamed. Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Avri Doria" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 5:02 PM Subject: Re: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc > > The Problem document does deal with many of the issues that are > inherent in the IETF Standards process. So while it does not > explicitly get into the comparison with other SDO release processes or > use the release language of these other SDOs, it does open the door to > discussions about the IETF engineering and document process. In fact a > BOF was held and a mailing list established for discussing the IETF > Standard process as a result of some of the problem WG discussions. > > As for the IPR issue, there is a WG that focuses exclusively on IPR > issues. I think that would be the right venue for discussions about > validating those who submit IPR claims. > > a. > > > On onsdag, dec 3, 2003, at 23:37 Asia/Seoul, todd glassey wrote: > > > Avri, > > You still have not dealt with the issues of the release > > process or in validating that anyone submitting IP to > > the IETF has the legal ability to do so... > > > > Todd > > > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Thu Dec 4 17:15:29 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20284 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:15:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4317F61BD8; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:15:10 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from halvestr-w2k1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B080661BD6; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 23:15:07 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:15:06 -0800 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: todd glassey , Avri Doria , problem-statement@alvestrand.no Message-ID: <106597829.1070547306@halvestr-w2k1> In-Reply-To: <001c01c3ba3a$883eea80$010aff0a@tsg> References: <94E02CE0-25F5-11D8-A44D-000393CC2112@acm.org> <001c01c3ba3a$883eea80$010aff0a@tsg> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: Perceived consensus on Problem Doc X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --On 3. desember 2003 23:19 -0800 todd glassey wrote: > Avri - the core issue the IPRights working group was to > deal with was the IP issues. Right? - well if its true > that the current submission model does not provide any > reliable conveyance of "a right to publish the > submitted materials" then the entire process if flamed. Todd, this was taken up in the IPR group, and well-nigh beaten to death there. The model that we use has not been found flawed (at least not in the way you assume) by any of the participating lawyers. And anyway, it's not directly relevant to the Problem WG's document. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Wed Dec 10 05:40:50 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06750 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 05:40:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A282561BB9; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:40:20 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from asgard.ietf.org (asgard.ietf.org [132.151.6.40]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0C761BB5 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:28:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from apache by asgard.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.14) id 1ATkj2-00009u-VL; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:28:40 -0500 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:28:40 -0500 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:40:19 +0100 Subject: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list Reply-To: iesg@ietf.org List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no The IESG has received a request from the Problem Statement WG to consider the following document: - 'IETF Problem Statement' as an Informational RFC Despite this document being intended for Informational status, the WG has recommended that an IETF Last Call be issued for the document, since the document is important for the IETF community. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2003-12-23. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-05.txt From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Thu Dec 11 09:28:51 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA01864 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:28:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A30761BDE; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:28:20 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C9E261BD8 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:28:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com [171.71.163.17]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBBESEAt008038 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:28:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com ([10.25.65.180]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with SMTP id APA29478; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:28:12 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:28:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Melinda Shore To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <3FB74D27-2BE6-11D8-85DE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Subject: Last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The last call for IETF Problem Resolution Process, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-03.txt , has ended. The comments were primarily on the question of whether or not to release the document. There is consensus that if it is to be published, the longer-term process changes material would be as a record of the working group's deliberations and *not* as a set of recommendations to be acted upon. There were few comments on the contents of the document and those focused on improving the set of recommendations, which given the change in focus of the document are now more appropriate to the Solutions discussions. We'd like to propose adding the following text to the abstract and introduction: This Informational memo is being released to record the history of discussions by the Problem WG in 2003. While there was working group consensus on the portions of the document describing processes for short-term and medium term improvements, it does not represent a set of steps for longer-term improvements for which there was Working Group consensus. Is there anybody who cannot live with adding this text and sending the document on? Avri and Melinda From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Thu Dec 11 09:39:49 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02154 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:39:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC04061BD8; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:39:18 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from i2kc04-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net (smtp4.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.151]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE1D61B9A for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:39:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from i2km98-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.85]) by i2kc04-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:39:12 +0000 Received: from i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.79]) by i2km98-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:39:12 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:39:11 -0000 Message-ID: <3D67CCA7D63E714B980D21A038EEA08E045A2BC3@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Thread-Topic: Last call results - process document Thread-Index: AcO/8w7FFtFWqMItQ86eBGtuLWh6jgAASFMQ From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2003 14:39:12.0052 (UTC) FILETIME=[8AF19740:01C3BFF4] Subject: RE: Last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Melinda, ".... it does not represent a set of steps for longer-term improvements = for which there was Working Group consensus." Do you mean " ... for which there was NO Working Group consensus." ? Regards, Graham Travers International Standards Manager BT Exact e-mail: graham.travers@bt.com tel: +44(0) 1359 235086 mobile: +44(0) 7808 502536 fax: +44(0) 1359 235087 HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no. 1800000 This electronic message contains information from British = Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The = information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity = named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any = disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this = information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message = in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or = address above) immediately. =20 -----Original Message----- From: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no [mailto:problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Melinda Shore Sent: 11 December 2003 14:28 To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Last call results - process document The last call for IETF Problem Resolution Process, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-03.txt , has ended. The comments were primarily on the question of whether or not to release the document. There is consensus that if it is to be published, the longer-term process changes material would be as a record of the working group's deliberations and *not* as a set of recommendations to be acted upon. There were few comments on the contents of the document and those focused on improving the set of recommendations, which given the change in focus of the document are now more appropriate to the Solutions discussions. We'd like to propose adding the following text to the abstract and introduction: This Informational memo is being released to record the history of discussions by the Problem WG in 2003. While there was working group consensus on the portions of the document describing processes for short-term and medium term improvements, it does not represent a set of steps for longer-term improvements for which there was Working Group consensus. Is there anybody who cannot live with adding this text and sending the document on? Avri and Melinda From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Thu Dec 11 09:55:32 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA02716 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:55:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB5A61BE0; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:55:02 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE4861BD8 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:54:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Dec 2003 06:57:17 +0000 Received: from mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com [171.71.163.17]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBBEstBN023143; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:54:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com ([10.25.65.180]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with SMTP id APA30780; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:54:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:54:53 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) To: From: Melinda Shore In-Reply-To: <3D67CCA7D63E714B980D21A038EEA08E045A2BC3@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: Last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 09:39 AM, wrote: > ".... it does not represent a set of steps for longer-term > improvements for which there was Working Group consensus." > Do you mean " ... for which there was NO Working Group consensus." ? The curse of the double negative. What we were attempting to say is that there was no consensus on any of the recommendations for longer-term improvements. Melinda From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Thu Dec 11 10:01:33 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA02959 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:01:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B428B61BF6; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:01:02 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from i2kc03-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net (smtp3.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.138]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 120B461BE0 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:01:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from i2km99-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.31]) by i2kc03-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:01:00 +0000 Received: from i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.79]) by i2km99-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:00:17 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:00:17 -0000 Message-ID: <3D67CCA7D63E714B980D21A038EEA08E045A2BC4@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Thread-Topic: Last call results - process document Thread-Index: AcO/9sMdrBJXPpEVTOa5yFT2dygDtAAADrgg From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2003 15:00:17.0735 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D597D70:01C3BFF7] Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: RE: Last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Melinda, I suggest you say that, then. 8o) It didn't read that way to me, = although I understood that to be the case from following the = discussions. =20 If you leave the original text, I think you need the double negative, to = be clear. The original text suggests that there WAS consensus, but for = some reason the document doesn't record it ! Regards, Graham Travers International Standards Manager BT Exact e-mail: graham.travers@bt.com tel: +44(0) 1359 235086 mobile: +44(0) 7808 502536 fax: +44(0) 1359 235087 HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no. 1800000 This electronic message contains information from British = Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The = information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity = named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any = disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this = information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message = in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or = address above) immediately. =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no [mailto:problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Melinda Shore Sent: 11 December 2003 14:55 To: Travers,G,Graham,XVT TRAVERG R Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: Last call results - process document On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 09:39 AM, =20 wrote: > ".... it does not represent a set of steps for longer-term=20 > improvements for which there was Working Group consensus." > Do you mean " ... for which there was NO Working Group consensus." ? The curse of the double negative. What we were attempting to say is=20 that there was no consensus on any of the recommendations for longer-term improvements. Melinda From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Thu Dec 11 21:25:19 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07977 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:25:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E6361B98; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:24:48 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net (sccrmhc12.comcast.net [204.127.202.56]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FFBE61B93 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 03:24:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-129.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.129]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003121202244401200npdfee> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Fri, 12 Dec 2003 02:24:44 +0000 Message-ID: <001801c3c057$1b67a190$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <3FB74D27-2BE6-11D8-85DE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:24:44 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: Re: Last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ignoring the double-negative comment already mentioned, this text is very appropriate. And so is sending the document on. Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Melinda Shore" To: Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 8:28 AM Subject: Last call results - process document > The last call for IETF Problem Resolution Process, > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-03.txt , > has ended. The comments were primarily on the question of > whether or not to release the document. There is consensus > that if it is to be published, the longer-term process > changes material would be as a record of the working group's > deliberations and *not* as a set of recommendations to be > acted upon. There were few comments on the contents of the > document and those focused on improving the set of > recommendations, which given the change in focus of the > document are now more appropriate to the Solutions > discussions. > > We'd like to propose adding the following text to the > abstract and introduction: > > This Informational memo is being released to record > the history of discussions by the Problem WG in > 2003. While there was working group consensus on > the portions of the document describing processes > for short-term and medium term improvements, it > does not represent a set of steps for longer-term > improvements for which there was Working Group > consensus. > > Is there anybody who cannot live with adding this text and > sending the document on? > > Avri and Melinda > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Dec 12 08:02:59 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06735 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:02:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AA2461BAB; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:02:28 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu (klutz.cs.utk.edu [160.36.56.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253DE61BA7 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:02:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0C4AFDD5; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:02:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02879-09; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:02:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E93C2AFC22; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:02:21 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3FB74D27-2BE6-11D8-85DE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> References: <3FB74D27-2BE6-11D8-85DE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <86F8C36A-2CA3-11D8-97F7-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Keith Moore Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:03:06 -0500 To: Melinda Shore X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, Keith Moore Subject: Re: Last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'd prefer that the document not be sent on - as I don't even think it's even representative of the group's deliberations. Keith From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Dec 12 08:19:06 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07698 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:19:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31D8961BAB; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:18:35 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com (mgw-x1.nokia.com [131.228.20.21]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7AB361BA7 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:18:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir05nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.37]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hBCDIWn20542 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:18:32 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:18:21 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:18:22 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:18:20 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC Thread-Index: AcO+c4pCgMv2o934TnueqT7Pmihj4QCPabBA From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Dec 2003 13:18:22.0142 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A95CDE0:01C3C0B2] Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: RE: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the > iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2003-12-23. Some small comments: 1) Section 1: > Discussions over the last year or more have shown that a significant May want to provide a year, for historical purposed. 2) Sections 1.4 through 1.7 should be dropped when the document is published, I don't think we need to carry the document history. 3) I think a disclaimer should be added to the document. I am not exactly sure of what kind, but the document's tone is too authoratative. Reading now, the document reads as if there was strong agreement from all quarters of the IETF. I don't think the Problem WG has strong=20 agreement on all aspects of the document, so perhaps some disclaimer needs to be added, so that when people read this who were not involved in the discussions do not get the wrong opinion. John From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Dec 12 11:49:42 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15868 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:49:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F93561BAB; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:49:12 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from pguin2.txc.com (transfire.transwitch.com [208.5.237.254]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57C861B8B for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:49:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from txc.com ([172.17.0.134]) by pguin2.txc.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id hBCGmB019245; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:48:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3FD9F14B.8010209@txc.com> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:48:11 -0500 From: Alex Conta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Melinda Shore References: <3FB74D27-2BE6-11D8-85DE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <3FB74D27-2BE6-11D8-85DE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms000604080609020509050800" Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: Last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms000604080609020509050800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Last Call (#2) was the last opportunity to make this document as inclusive as it should be. As a reminder, a document like this, supposed to help address problems is not to be exclusive, or selective in problems that it lists, since the very purpose of it was to gather and document ALL the problems, as they were perceived in IETF. Unfortunately some comments/suggestions considered major by submitters remained unresolved, showing that in fact even this document is a reflection of some of the very problems that people in IETF hoped through this WG's effort to address - some voices are heard and others are not. So, am sorry to say, but I do not think that this document is ready to leave yet this WG... Regards, Alex Melinda Shore wrote: > The last call for IETF Problem Resolution Process, > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-03.txt , > has ended. The comments were primarily on the question of > whether or not to release the document. There is consensus > that if it is to be published, the longer-term process > changes material would be as a record of the working group's > deliberations and *not* as a set of recommendations to be > acted upon. There were few comments on the contents of the > document and those focused on improving the set of > recommendations, which given the change in focus of the > document are now more appropriate to the Solutions > discussions. > > We'd like to propose adding the following text to the > abstract and introduction: > > This Informational memo is being released to record > the history of discussions by the Problem WG in > 2003. While there was working group consensus on > the portions of the document describing processes > for short-term and medium term improvements, it > does not represent a set of steps for longer-term > improvements for which there was Working Group > consensus. > > Is there anybody who cannot live with adding this text and > sending the document on? > > Avri and Melinda > > > --------------ms000604080609020509050800 Content-Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" Content-Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIINdDCC Ay4wggKXoAMCAQICEQDSdi6NFAw9fbKoJV2v7g11MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAgUAMF8xCzAJBgNV BAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjE3MDUGA1UECxMuQ2xhc3MgMSBQdWJs aWMgUHJpbWFyeSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eTAeFw05ODA1MTIwMDAwMDBaFw0w ODA1MTIyMzU5NTlaMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVy aVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0 b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNp Z24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRh dGVkMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQC7WkSKBBa7Vf0DeootlE8VeDa4DUqy b5xUv7zodyqdufBou5XZMUFweoFLuUgTVi3HCOGEQqvAopKrRFyqQvCCDgLpL/vCO7u+yScK XbawNkIztW5UiE+HSr8Z2vkV6A+HthzjzMaajn9qJJLj/OBluqexfu/J2zdqyErICQbkmQID AQABo3wwejARBglghkgBhvhCAQEEBAMCAQYwRwYDVR0gBEAwPjA8BgtghkgBhvhFAQcBATAt MCsGCCsGAQUFBwIBFh93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBBMA8GA1UdEwQI MAYBAf8CAQAwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgEGMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAgUAA4GBAIi4Nzvd2pQ3AK2qn+GB AXEekmptL/bxndPKZDjcG5gMB4ZbhRVqD7lJhaSV8Rd9Z7R/LSzdmkKewz60jqrlCwbe8lYq +jPHvhnXU0zDvcjjF7WkSUJj7MKmFw9dWBpJPJBcVaNlIAD9GCDlX4KmsaiSxVhqwY0DPOvD zQWikK5uMIIFHTCCBIagAwIBAgIQDFhozXoBNyMFqZW5+0I4wjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADCB zDEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5l dHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3Jw LiBCeSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxSDBGBgNVBAMTP1ZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgQ0Eg SW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyLVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDAeFw0wMzEwMDcw MDAwMDBaFw0wNDEwMDYyMzU5NTlaMIIBCzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAd BgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5j b20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9SUEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNV BAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDEzMDEGA1UECxMqRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAx IC0gTmV0c2NhcGUgRnVsbCBTZXJ2aWNlMRMwEQYDVQQDFApBbGV4IENvbnRhMR0wGwYJKoZI hvcNAQkBFg5hY29udGFAdHhjLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEB ALgW3oel96XxVMcdn78gvsKs3glm42IQbSNsch1nqnh8iFVikuJIrnugQTxaihWQwLAnFt3W SNoFHx4srCYxq2mdpbrrUeM6NlplpYe6PWT78jtkpw8oceTZX77ADPmUiskRheblLBuqr7DP de7MG3UreBFT7kAh4FvEPUfnI5KGG5LwowPfGHtcik27wq59ULNYBsty2j+gEBpcf2Jet1n9 9FmJtCE2V0JhIe/zMe3y5gxSzkCUvxNMSwSzH5mt+Gvj91laacIFUvIzEVfdqnBSriieOYB4 Oacw7PGWqnmQ78UmVQrkoc+81gyeQDvnMsZ841NmaexzufJuky1rdhUCAwEAAaOCATgwggE0 MAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwgawGA1UdIASBpDCBoTCBngYLYIZIAYb4RQEHAQEwgY4wKAYIKwYBBQUH AgEWHGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9DUFMwYgYIKwYBBQUHAgIwVjAVFg5WZXJp U2lnbiwgSW5jLjADAgEBGj1WZXJpU2lnbidzIENQUyBpbmNvcnAuIGJ5IHJlZmVyZW5jZSBs aWFiLiBsdGQuIChjKTk3IFZlcmlTaWduMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIHgDAwBgpghkgBhvhF AQYHBCIWIDI1MzE2MTcwNzRhNWE1NTc5M2M3ZTg0MjY2MTI1MDI2MDMGA1UdHwQsMCowKKAm oCSGImh0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL2NsYXNzMS5jcmwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEEBQAD gYEAsi/OC8pQbUyCeMa36koAIMfC533LaBKd7eU2aZ+X3DMs2xIf7fZxJTJWAqhBDSHEqyV+ BB3GIlDk8BA8JzZsDpIolNiJoETRpaeoaktM03g5QpNfcpcQGzGsI/ZPOOPpybWCEeXXZnwg XWdVF3BOIZ64NWG/RsdVEmQnIW3S0U4wggUdMIIEhqADAgECAhAMWGjNegE3IwWplbn7QjjC MA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBAUAMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMW VmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBv c2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVy aVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFs aWRhdGVkMB4XDTAzMTAwNzAwMDAwMFoXDTA0MTAwNjIzNTk1OVowggELMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5W ZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UE CxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAuIGJ5IFJlZi4sTElB Qi5MVEQoYyk5ODEeMBwGA1UECxMVUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkMTMwMQYDVQQLEypE aWdpdGFsIElEIENsYXNzIDEgLSBOZXRzY2FwZSBGdWxsIFNlcnZpY2UxEzARBgNVBAMUCkFs ZXggQ29udGExHTAbBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWDmFjb250YUB0eGMuY29tMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0B AQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAuBbeh6X3pfFUxx2fvyC+wqzeCWbjYhBtI2xyHWeqeHyIVWKS 4kiue6BBPFqKFZDAsCcW3dZI2gUfHiysJjGraZ2luutR4zo2WmWlh7o9ZPvyO2SnDyhx5Nlf vsAM+ZSKyRGF5uUsG6qvsM917swbdSt4EVPuQCHgW8Q9R+cjkoYbkvCjA98Ye1yKTbvCrn1Q s1gGy3LaP6AQGlx/Yl63Wf30WYm0ITZXQmEh7/Mx7fLmDFLOQJS/E0xLBLMfma34a+P3WVpp wgVS8jMRV92qcFKuKJ45gHg5pzDs8ZaqeZDvxSZVCuShz7zWDJ5AO+cyxnzjU2Zp7HO58m6T LWt2FQIDAQABo4IBODCCATQwCQYDVR0TBAIwADCBrAYDVR0gBIGkMIGhMIGeBgtghkgBhvhF AQcBATCBjjAoBggrBgEFBQcCARYcaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL0NQUzBiBggr BgEFBQcCAjBWMBUWDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMAMCAQEaPVZlcmlTaWduJ3MgQ1BTIGluY29y cC4gYnkgcmVmZXJlbmNlIGxpYWIuIGx0ZC4gKGMpOTcgVmVyaVNpZ24wEQYJYIZIAYb4QgEB BAQDAgeAMDAGCmCGSAGG+EUBBgcEIhYgMjUzMTYxNzA3NGE1YTU1NzkzYzdlODQyNjYxMjUw MjYwMwYDVR0fBCwwKjAooCagJIYiaHR0cDovL2NybC52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vY2xhc3MxLmNy bDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQCyL84LylBtTIJ4xrfqSgAgx8LnfctoEp3t5TZpn5fcMyzb Eh/t9nElMlYCqEENIcSrJX4EHcYiUOTwEDwnNmwOkiiU2ImgRNGlp6hqS0zTeDlCk19ylxAb Mawj9k844+nJtYIR5ddmfCBdZ1UXcE4hnrg1Yb9Gx1USZCchbdLRTjGCBKowggSmAgEBMIHh MIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3Qg TmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNv cnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5MVEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBD QSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAMWGjNegE3 IwWplbn7QjjCMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggKdMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJ KoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTAzMTIxMjE2NDgxMVowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFDupAnF87PRUgOfG lqbZ+oXye8RaMFIGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFFMEMwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCA MA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMIHyBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQx geQwgeEwgcwxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBU cnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBB IEluY29ycC4gQnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFz cyAxIENBIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQCEAxY aM16ATcjBamVuftCOMIwgfQGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYHkoIHhMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJp U2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9 d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5M VEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNj cmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAMWGjNegE3IwWplbn7QjjCMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBAQUABIIBAE5keOJC3k9PlOV5WfL3S9r4/OhyyJp7Pd48uh+dreNg5CaY54nFGRBIobqn sl9txPM0obbyJ7XZqZXcoUWqMP4euvKrK1iLHQrTKnn/oCmpc0xVBd1HmHM1MIcaqfeCHpn6 zhdQb1jnNdBSs6K96hUUcG6s1hiBXkhmMyCfzRR8PZOAVVlkQY22UL5xDCqROMa7HWDltbEo MIvIJh8gXAbdthV0ycqzJvBQYXRXJJ39SBj12cCyhySisp9nH5JuFrC77p8msMMfMJyHKn4q Ehypz7svWFmfUeL3oKJyl56kamasT5/NbvNCr08HRDhnH3TVBRY07fcBI9Yw067WWG4AAAAA AAA= --------------ms000604080609020509050800-- From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Dec 12 12:05:35 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16509 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:05:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AF9E61BDE; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:05:02 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF09F61BAC for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:05:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2003 09:07:32 +0000 Received: from mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com [171.71.163.17]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBCH4vZ0025834; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:04:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com ([10.25.65.180]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with SMTP id APB54264; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:04:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:04:56 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) To: Alex Conta From: Melinda Shore In-Reply-To: <3FD9F14B.8010209@txc.com> Message-Id: <4FAEAFCB-2CC5-11D8-85DE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: Last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 11:48 AM, Alex Conta wrote: > As a reminder, a document like this, supposed to help address problems > is not to be exclusive, or selective in problems that it lists, since > the very purpose of it was to gather and document ALL the problems, as > they were perceived in IETF. First, this working group was chartered to produce two documents, one describing the IETF's problems and the second making recommendations for a process or set of processes to address the problems identified in the first document. The document that just completed WG last call is the second document. It documents *no* problems. Although it does reference problems identified in the first document, the problems described in it must not be considered "normative" - that's not its function. Second, it was agreed at the outset that given the nature of what we were trying to do we could neither expect consensus on everything in the problem description document nor could we expect it to be comprehensive. We are asking, however, whether or not we can operate in the spirit of consensus in getting these documents through last call. That means distinguishing between things that we might not like but we can live with on the one hand and things that we think are so profoundly flawed that they do need to be fixed on the other. Thanks, Melinda From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Sat Dec 13 01:04:54 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA13808 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:04:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCCC561BDE; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:04:21 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net (rwcrmhc12.comcast.net [216.148.227.85]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F9661BAC for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:04:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-129.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.129]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <2003121306041801400412qje> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Sat, 13 Dec 2003 06:04:18 +0000 Message-ID: <007e01c3c13e$f231a9e0$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <4FAEAFCB-2CC5-11D8-85DE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 00:04:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: Re: Last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I know I've slept since Minneapolis, but I thought the sense of the room in Minneapolis was that the process document was running behind the response to the problem statement document, and that we were basically punting on trying to come up with a process in this working group - what we were publishing was the freeze-dried state of the process discussion, prior to punting. If I thought the IESG, or the rest of the IETF, was sitting waiting for the process document so they would know what to do next, heck yes we should be trying to get it right. They aren't. We're starting mailing lists to chew on these problems at the rate of two a day (for one sample this past week). I think the choices are to publish the document as Informational or to junk it. Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Melinda Shore" To: "Alex Conta" Cc: Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Last call results - process document > On Friday, December 12, 2003, at 11:48 AM, Alex Conta wrote: > > As a reminder, a document like this, supposed to help address problems > > is not to be exclusive, or selective in problems that it lists, since > > the very purpose of it was to gather and document ALL the problems, as > > they were perceived in IETF. > > First, this working group was chartered to produce two documents, one > describing the IETF's problems and the second making recommendations for > a process or set of processes to address the problems identified in the > first document. The document that just completed WG last call is the > second document. It documents *no* problems. Although it does > reference > problems identified in the first document, the problems described in it > must not be considered "normative" - that's not its function. > > Second, it was agreed at the outset that given the nature of what > we were trying to do we could neither expect consensus on everything > in the problem description document nor could we expect it to be > comprehensive. We are asking, however, whether or not we can operate > in the spirit of consensus in getting these documents through last call. > That means distinguishing between things that we might not like but we > can live with on the one hand and things that we think are so profoundly > flawed that they do need to be fixed on the other. > > Thanks, > > Melinda > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Mon Dec 15 12:43:12 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17942 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:43:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0B661E97; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:42:41 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B0B61DEC for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:42:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (171.68.223.137) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Dec 2003 17:43:30 +0000 Received: from mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com [171.71.163.17]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBFHgarX026335 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:42:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com ([10.25.65.180]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with SMTP id APC98670; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:42:35 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:42:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Melinda Shore To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <0F69CC58-2F26-11D8-B7AE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Subject: Re: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The original proposal was to add this: This Informational memo is being released to record the history of discussions by the Problem WG in 2003. While there was working group consensus on the portions of the document describing processes for short-term and medium term improvements, it does not represent a set of steps for longer-term improvements for which there was Working Group consensus. which several people felt was unclear (because it is). Here's a revision which I think is more to the point: This Informational memo is being released to record the history of discussions by the Problem WG in 2003. While there was working group consensus on the portions of the document describing processes for short-term and medium term improvements, there no working group consensus on the proposals for longer- term improvements. Those are included in the document as a matter of record but must not be regarded as recommendations from the working group. Melinda From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Mon Dec 15 15:02:23 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23397 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:02:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C2F061E97; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:01:52 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from newdev.harvard.edu (newdev.eecs.harvard.edu [140.247.60.212]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E6C61B89 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:01:50 +0100 (CET) Received: by newdev.harvard.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) id 110C9A5511; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:01:48 -0500 (EST) To: mshore@cisco.com, problem-statement@alvestrand.no In-Reply-To: <0F69CC58-2F26-11D8-B7AE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Message-Id: <20031215200148.110C9A5511@newdev.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:01:48 -0500 (EST) From: sob@harvard.edu (Scott Bradner) Subject: Re: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no works for me -- This Informational memo is being released to record the history of discussions by the Problem WG in 2003. While there was working group consensus on the portions of the document describing processes for short-term and medium term improvements, there no working group consensus on the proposals for longer- term improvements. Those are included in the document as a matter of record but must not be regarded as recommendations from the working group. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Mon Dec 15 17:33:41 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA03565 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:33:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A2D61E97; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:33:11 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.115]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC9E61DEC for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:33:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from tsg (193.san-jose-09-10rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.195.193]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with SMTP id <2003121522330411100s42jde>; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 22:33:06 +0000 Message-ID: <01e201c3c35a$c8bbce10$010aff0a@tsg> From: "todd glassey" To: , , "Scott Bradner" References: <20031215200148.110C9A5511@newdev.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:28:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Subject: Re: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list Reply-To: todd glassey List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What about all the opinions that are not part of the record or that were removed from consideration therein? Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Bradner" To: ; Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 12:01 PM Subject: Re: last call results - process document > works for me > > -- > This Informational memo is being released to record > the history of discussions by the Problem WG in > 2003. While there was working group consensus on > the portions of the document describing processes > for short-term and medium term improvements, there > no working group consensus on the proposals for longer- > term improvements. Those are included in the document > as a matter of record but must not be regarded as > recommendations from the working group. > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Mon Dec 15 20:11:17 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA09928 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:11:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBBB61F4E; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:10:46 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu (klutz.cs.utk.edu [160.36.56.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79A6A61F4A for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:10:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA08AFD5D; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:10:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20867-12; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:10:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92417AFB3B; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:10:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:10:40 -0500 From: Keith Moore To: Melinda Shore Message-Id: <20031215201040.5cf7be89.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <0F69CC58-2F26-11D8-B7AE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> References: <0F69CC58-2F26-11D8-B7AE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > which several people felt was unclear (because it is). Here's > a revision which I think is more to the point: > > This Informational memo is being released to record > the history of discussions by the Problem WG in > 2003. While there was working group consensus on > the portions of the document describing processes > for short-term and medium term improvements, no, I don't think so. basically I don't think this document was ever taken seriously by much of the working group, so any purported consensus on any of the document is dubious at best. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Mon Dec 15 21:58:52 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA13499 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:58:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 230D761B8F; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:58:21 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B7A261B89 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:58:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-129.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.129]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <2003121602581801600rimuie> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:58:18 +0000 Message-ID: <006a01c3c380$76239720$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <0F69CC58-2F26-11D8-B7AE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> <20031215201040.5cf7be89.moore@cs.utk.edu> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:19 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: Re: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FWIW, I'm also not sure that we ever had "working group consensus" on the process document. What we DID have was reasonable acceptance of suggestions for moving forward on the short-term stuff, and I offer as evidence the point that almost everything proposed in 5.1 of the document is happening now. And, based on the low level of energy and participation in Minneapolis, I'm not sure what "working group consensus" would look like, these days. Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Moore" To: "Melinda Shore" Cc: ; Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:10 PM Subject: Re: last call results - process document > > which several people felt was unclear (because it is). Here's > > a revision which I think is more to the point: > > > > This Informational memo is being released to record > > the history of discussions by the Problem WG in > > 2003. While there was working group consensus on > > the portions of the document describing processes > > for short-term and medium term improvements, > > no, I don't think so. basically I don't think this document was > ever taken seriously by much of the working group, so any purported > consensus on any of the document is dubious at best. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Tue Dec 16 08:26:06 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14714 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:26:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FBC761B8D; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:25:34 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD9761B89 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:25:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com [171.71.163.17]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBGDPTBN018591; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:25:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com ([10.25.65.180]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with SMTP id APD88296; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:25:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:25:22 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) To: Keith Moore From: Melinda Shore In-Reply-To: <20031215201040.5cf7be89.moore@cs.utk.edu> Message-Id: <4D432E16-2FCB-11D8-B7AE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Monday, December 15, 2003, at 08:10 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > no, I don't think so. basically I don't think this document was > ever taken seriously by much of the working group, so any purported > consensus on any of the document is dubious at best. There was near unanimity in support of the suggestions for short-term improvement identified in the document - about as close as I've seen to perfect consensus in an IETF working group. There's no consensus on the longer-term suggestions, nor will there be (at least not in this working group) and we're trying to come to consensus on the document itself. That's more-or-less what we're trying to capture in the text in question. Melinda From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Tue Dec 16 08:30:44 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14996 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:30:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2CB561B8D; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:30:12 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com (mgw-x1.nokia.com [131.228.20.21]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D73B61B89 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:30:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir05nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.37]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hBGDUA729592 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:30:11 +0200 (EET) Received: from daebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:30:03 +0200 Received: from bsebe001.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.19.160.13]) by daebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Tue, 16 Dec 2003 07:29:43 -0600 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:29:41 -0500 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: last call results - process document Thread-Index: AcPD2BnedT+AgJD8SfO/TipF5MEUHQAAExKg From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2003 13:29:43.0828 (UTC) FILETIME=[AA8DD540:01C3C3D8] Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: RE: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My recollection matches Melinda's. There was very strong consensus in the room (I think we were in Vienna) on the short-term recommendations in the process document, and=20 this was confirmed on the mailing list. The WG opinion was split on the longer-term recommendations that were in the document at that time, and I don't recall that we have achieved WG consensus on any other longer-term solutions. Margaret > -----Original Message----- > From: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no > [mailto:problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of=20 > ext Melinda > Shore > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 8:25 AM > To: Keith Moore > Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no > Subject: Re: last call results - process document >=20 >=20 > On Monday, December 15, 2003, at 08:10 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > no, I don't think so. basically I don't think this document was > > ever taken seriously by much of the working group, so any purported > > consensus on any of the document is dubious at best. >=20 > There was near unanimity in support of the suggestions for > short-term improvement identified in the document - about as > close as I've seen to perfect consensus in an IETF working > group. There's no consensus on the longer-term suggestions, > nor will there be (at least not in this working group) and > we're trying to come to consensus on the document itself. > That's more-or-less what we're trying to capture in the text > in question. >=20 > Melinda >=20 >=20 From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Tue Dec 16 13:15:21 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26217 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:15:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160C761B8D; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:14:51 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu (klutz.cs.utk.edu [160.36.56.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E58161B89 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:14:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0D6AFD6D; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14385-10; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:14:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C994AFD04; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:14:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:14:46 -0500 From: Keith Moore To: Message-Id: <20031216131446.6e76b29f.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Cc: mshore@cisco.com, problem-statement@alvestrand.no, moore@cs.utk.edu Subject: Re: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > My recollection matches Melinda's. There was very strong > consensus in the room (I think we were in Vienna) on the > short-term recommendations in the process document, and > this was confirmed on the mailing list. sigh. I guess I think that by Vienna this WG had long since lost its credibility due to the way that the problem statement document was handled, and for that reason that any consensus of those remaining is of dubious value. However, I don't personally have objections to the items listed in 5.1, with the possible exception of #7, and only because I think the way #7 is stated it would only encourage us to move the underlying problem rather than solving it. I'd have much less objection if this WG were to publish section 5.1 and supporting material only, and completely omit the longer-term recommendations from the document. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Thu Dec 18 05:09:05 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA13831 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 05:09:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3A561BB5; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:08:34 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from i2kc02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net (smtp2.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.150]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 049FB61BAC for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:08:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from i2km96-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.84]) by i2kc02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:31 +0000 Received: from i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.79]) by i2km96-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:32 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 10:08:30 -0000 Message-ID: <3D67CCA7D63E714B980D21A038EEA08E059276D8@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net> Thread-Topic: last call results - process document Thread-Index: AcPDNS/5XuwTlInJQ8WwSBl8hYzj0gCGPaCw From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2003 10:08:32.0218 (UTC) FILETIME=[E423D3A0:01C3C54E] Subject: RE: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Melinda, Nearly right ! 8o) "...there no working group consensus..." should read "...there WAS no = working group consensus"...=20 Sorry about that ! FWIW, my recollection accords with those of Melinda and Margaret. The = suggestions for longer-term improvements were holed below the waterline = in Vienna. Nevertheless, I think it would be useful to include them for = *information* - to prevent people going over the same ground again in = the future. Isn't that what Informationals are for ? Regards, Graham Travers International Standards Manager BT Exact e-mail: graham.travers@bt.com tel: +44(0) 1359 235086 mobile: +44(0) 7808 502536 fax: +44(0) 1359 235087 HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no. 1800000 This electronic message contains information from British = Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The = information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity = named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any = disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this = information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message = in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or = address above) immediately. =20 -----Original Message----- From: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no [mailto:problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Melinda Shore Sent: 15 December 2003 17:43 To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: last call results - process document The original proposal was to add this: This Informational memo is being released to record the history of discussions by the Problem WG in 2003. While there was working group consensus on the portions of the document describing processes for short-term and medium term improvements, it does not represent a set of steps for longer-term improvements for which there was Working Group consensus. which several people felt was unclear (because it is). Here's a revision which I think is more to the point: This Informational memo is being released to record the history of discussions by the Problem WG in 2003. While there was working group consensus on the portions of the document describing processes for short-term and medium term improvements, there no working group consensus on the proposals for longer- term improvements. Those are included in the document as a matter of record but must not be regarded as recommendations from the working group. Melinda From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Sat Dec 20 08:11:41 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA07583 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:11:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4EB961BEE; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:11:09 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.117]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40AD461AA5 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:11:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from tsg (77.san-jose-01-03rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.192.77]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13) with SMTP id <20031220131104113001b8bse>; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 13:11:05 +0000 Message-ID: <01cc01c3c6fa$17631940$010aff0a@tsg> From: "todd glassey" To: , , References: Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 05:06:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list Reply-To: todd glassey List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Margaret you have just run head-on into the failing of the IETF process. That being no clear record keeping. To demonstrate this I simply point to your commentary below being that "as per your recollection" ... I read this to mean that someone else may formally "recall something different" which is the failing I refer to. This entity, the IETF is supposed to be a Global Standards Agency and it needs to have something a little more firm than the reliance on individual's memories as the basis of how it documents consensus. Todd Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Cc: Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 5:29 AM Subject: RE: last call results - process document My recollection matches Melinda's. There was very strong consensus in the room (I think we were in Vienna) on the short-term recommendations in the process document, and this was confirmed on the mailing list. The WG opinion was split on the longer-term recommendations that were in the document at that time, and I don't recall that we have achieved WG consensus on any other longer-term solutions. Margaret > -----Original Message----- > From: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no > [mailto:problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of > ext Melinda > Shore > Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 8:25 AM > To: Keith Moore > Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no > Subject: Re: last call results - process document > > > On Monday, December 15, 2003, at 08:10 PM, Keith Moore wrote: > > no, I don't think so. basically I don't think this document was > > ever taken seriously by much of the working group, so any purported > > consensus on any of the document is dubious at best. > > There was near unanimity in support of the suggestions for > short-term improvement identified in the document - about as > close as I've seen to perfect consensus in an IETF working > group. There's no consensus on the longer-term suggestions, > nor will there be (at least not in this working group) and > we're trying to come to consensus on the document itself. > That's more-or-less what we're trying to capture in the text > in question. > > Melinda > > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Sat Dec 20 08:35:24 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA08062 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:35:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A937161BEE; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:34:53 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4A061AA5 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:34:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Dec 2003 05:38:56 +0000 Received: from mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com [171.71.163.17]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hBKDYlVM004528; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 05:34:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com ([10.25.65.180]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with SMTP id API08386; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 05:34:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:34:41 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) To: "todd glassey" From: Melinda Shore In-Reply-To: <01cc01c3c6fa$17631940$010aff0a@tsg> Message-Id: <4425AD92-32F1-11D8-B7AE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Saturday, December 20, 2003, at 08:06 AM, todd glassey wrote: > you have just run head-on into the failing of the IETF > process. That being no clear record keeping. To > demonstrate this I simply point to your commentary > below being that "as per your recollection" ... I read > this to mean that someone else may formally "recall > something different" which is the failing I refer to. We have both meeting minutes and jabber chat log transcripts recording the decisions that were taken at meetings, as well as mailing list archives. Melinda From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Sat Dec 20 13:18:17 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA15369 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 13:18:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBC061C20; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:17:48 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E72B61C1F for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:17:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-129.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.129]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP id <2003122018174101600rigm7e> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:17:44 +0000 Message-ID: <087001c3c725$94487600$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <4425AD92-32F1-11D8-B7AE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:17:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Subject: Re: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Spencer Dawkins List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I looked at the vienna proceedings, which contained "Margaret asked that we get back on track to discussing the process document. Avri took a hum to see if those present felt that the overall direction of the document is correct. The hum was positive. She next asked if there are incorrect recommendations in the document, and the hum was negative." Hope this helps. Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Melinda Shore" To: "todd glassey" Cc: Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 7:34 AM Subject: Re: last call results - process document > On Saturday, December 20, 2003, at 08:06 AM, todd glassey wrote: > > you have just run head-on into the failing of the IETF > > process. That being no clear record keeping. To > > demonstrate this I simply point to your commentary > > below being that "as per your recollection" ... I read > > this to mean that someone else may formally "recall > > something different" which is the failing I refer to. > > We have both meeting minutes and jabber chat log transcripts > recording the decisions that were taken at meetings, as well > as mailing list archives. > > Melinda > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Sat Dec 20 14:00:25 2003 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA16274 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:00:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3725D61C1B; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:59:54 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.115]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53ED061C15 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:59:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from tsg (77.san-jose-01-03rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.192.77]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with SMTP id <20031220185948111006b792e>; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:59:49 +0000 Message-ID: <005901c3c72a$cfdfa440$010aff0a@tsg> From: "todd glassey" To: "Melinda Shore" References: <4425AD92-32F1-11D8-B7AE-000A95E35274@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:55:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: last call results - process document X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list Reply-To: todd glassey List-Id: Problem Statement List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Then why is the comment a recollection rather than what the record states. More to the point... T ----- Original Message ----- From: "Melinda Shore" To: "todd glassey" Cc: Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 5:34 AM Subject: Re: last call results - process document > On Saturday, December 20, 2003, at 08:06 AM, todd glassey wrote: > > you have just run head-on into the failing of the IETF > > process. That being no clear record keeping. To > > demonstrate this I simply point to your commentary > > below being that "as per your recollection" ... I read > > this to mean that someone else may formally "recall > > something different" which is the failing I refer to. > > We have both meeting minutes and jabber chat log transcripts > recording the decisions that were taken at meetings, as well > as mailing list archives. > > Melinda >