From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:40:05 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA06683 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:40:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 917CD61F4A; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:33:15 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from sccrmhc11.comcast.net (sccrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.202.55]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B01D61DEA for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:33:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-129.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.129]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2004010913331201100mjlmpe> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:33:12 +0000 Message-ID: <051501c3d6b5$2fcd6380$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: , References: <3FFBE19A.EF91D961@zurich.ibm.com> <3FFC43BC.3080101@txc.com> <3FFE81A3.93B931C6@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 07:33:36 -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: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC 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 could not agree more (except to emend Brian's quote as "encourage the IESG and the IETF community as a whole to continue the work"). Without reference to the additional problems raised recently, the current draft seems sufficient to have kicked off at least four or five problem resolution efforts (MPOWR, ART, NEWTRK - aren't there others?). If these efforts bear fruit, identifying other problems is worthwhile (and there's no reason individuals can't submit drafts on them now). If not, having a perfect embalmed list of problems that the IETF used to have, when it was still around, is not. At the risk of assuming something from a face-to-face meeting, it seemed in Minneapolis that the working group's energy has moved on. Continued fiddling with the document risks turning it into the list of problems that the group should have identified, whether it did or not. Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian E Carpenter" To: "Alex Conta" Cc: ; Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 4:25 AM Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC > Alex, > > My personal goal is not to have the document as complete as it can be, > but to encourage the IESG to continue the work it has started to > fix the most serious problems. > > Brian From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:56:45 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08774 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9278561C1D; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:59:23 +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 14C7261C18; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:59:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 08:57:58 -0800 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Keith Moore Message-ID: <1806702440.1073379478@localhost> In-Reply-To: <72D85E42-4002-11D8-93B4-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> References: <1745064319.1073317837@halvestr-w2k1> <61010DFD-3FE7-11D8-93B4-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> <1755800287.1073328575@localhost> <72D85E42-4002-11D8-93B4-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> 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 Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit --On 5. januar 2004 23:40 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: >> If you wish to raise some of these commments as IETF Last Call >> comments, I think you'll have to take the responsibility for raising >> these issues at IETF last call yourself. > > I thought that is what I was requesting. And we do have a tradition of > considering last call comments even if they are late. OK, so I interpret your comment as saying you want your November 20 comments entered as IETF Last Call comments, with no wording changes. Will do. Harald From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:56:45 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08775 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9DF61B9B; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:39:27 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mtagate3.de.ibm.com (mtagate3.de.ibm.com [195.212.29.152]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6824361B83 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:39:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196]) by mtagate3.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i07AdPBH053472; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:39:25 GMT Received: from collon.zurich.ibm.com (collon.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.143]) by d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i07AdOOX281740; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:39:25 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com ([9.145.246.138]) by collon.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA32400; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 11:39:22 +0100 Message-ID: <3FFBE19A.EF91D961@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 11:38:18 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit I too have been frustrated in the past (but not in this case) by comments not being accepted by document editors and/or WG chairs. But ultimately it is a judgement call: are these commments substantive enough to merit a new consensus call, or are they relatively unimportant? Whether other people support the comments is a factor in making that judgement. So I have some sympathy with a WG chair deciding that last call comments that do not attract support on the list can be set aside- but it is of course an appealable decision, at least for a standards track document. My personal view on the document in question is that we are well beyond the point of diminishing returns in tuning the text, and it should be published as it is. That doesn't mean that some of the recent comments aren't intrinsically valid - it just isn't worth any more effort. This document has largely served its purpose as a draft, and all that is usefully left is to archive it as an RFC. Brian Robert Snively wrote: > > I share Keith's concern, both about the response to > his comments, and to the response about my comments > from about the same time. > > Bob Snively > +1-408-333-8135 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:16 AM > > To: avri@acm.org > > Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no; Keith Moore; iesg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC > > > > > > > While we did call rough consensus despite your comments, > > and those of > > > Todd Glassey and Alex Conta, we did not ignore your > > comments and they > > > were included in the report on the rough consensus: > > > > > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > > > December/003245.html > > > > that's a stretch. I certainly didn't recognize a response to > > any of my > > comments in this "report". > > > > > to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,: > > > > > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > > > December/003247.html > > > > yes, I was commenting on your complete failure to evaluate my > > comments. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:56:49 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08777 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:56:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C413161C16; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:25:29 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mail-white.research.att.com (mail-red.research.att.com [192.20.225.110]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E514661BFC for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 19:25:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-30-103.research.att.com [135.207.30.103]) by mail-white.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CDF6640B6; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:24:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigmail.research.att.com (bigmail.research.att.com [135.207.30.101]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6FDF3B44; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:23:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from berkshire.research.att.com (sigaba.research.att.com [135.207.23.169]) by bigmail.research.att.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i06IPQZ10551; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:25:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from research.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berkshire.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB5E7B43; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:25:26 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 From: "Steven M. Bellovin" To: "todd glassey" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Jan 2004 09:21:12 PST." <000201c3d479$9934ede0$010aff0a@tsg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 13:25:26 -0500 Message-Id: <20040106182526.6AB5E7B43@berkshire.research.att.com> Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org 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 In message <000201c3d479$9934ede0$010aff0a@tsg>, "todd glassey" writes: >So then Steve - if the Chair can declare as to what >Consensus means then what is the point of a WG - The >Chair could take their own vote as a co and pass it... >Ridiculous and extreme but still possible under today's >rules. The issue specifically is > > 1) What is a consensus and who determines it for >each "vote"... The chair determines it; abuses of that power can be and have been appealed. Voting -- as you're repeatedly proposed, with essentially no support -- would require many other massive changes to the IETF structure, such as formal membership. But you know all that, because you've raised the issue repeatedly and received the same answers. > > 2) How is a consensus documented and what about >the capturing of dissenting opinions from the >Consensus - The working group mailing list archive. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:56:45 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08772 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2CEC61C0D; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:26:57 +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 7EA0561BFC for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:26:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from tsg (202.san-jose-04-05rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.193.202]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with SMTP id <20040106172652111006ctjme>; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:26:53 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c3d479$9934ede0$010aff0a@tsg> From: "todd glassey" To: "Steven M. Bellovin" , References: <20040106170558.C666A7B43@berkshire.research.att.com> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:21:12 -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 V6.00.2800.1165 Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC 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 So then Steve - if the Chair can declare as to what Consensus means then what is the point of a WG - The Chair could take their own vote as a co and pass it... Ridiculous and extreme but still possible under today's rules. The issue specifically is 1) What is a consensus and who determines it for each "vote"... 2) How is a consensus documented and what about the capturing of dissenting opinions from the Consensus - Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven M. Bellovin" To: Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 9:05 AM Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC > In message <5E1AB742-3FEC-11D8-A1FF-000393CC2112@acm.org>, avri@acm.org writes: > > > >On tisdag, jan 6, 2004, at 10:26 Asia/Seoul, Keith Moore wrote: > > > >> > >>> To the group: Apart from this one message from John, and a "ship it" > >>> message from Brian, I have seen no further Last Call comments to the > >>> IETF list or the IESG list. Is this in line with your perceptions, or > >>> did my search of my mailboxes miss something? > >> > >> I submitted comments on November 20; they are in the list archives at > >> > >> http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > >> November/003225.html > >> > >> since these appear to have been ignored by the WG management, (i.e. > >> the chairs declared "rough consensus" without even responding to these > >> comments), I believe IESG should consider them as comments for its > >> Last Call. > > > > > >While we did call rough consensus despite your comments, and those of > >Todd Glassey and Alex Conta, we did not ignore your comments and they > >were included in the report on the rough consensus: > > > >http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-stateme nt/2003-December/ > >003245.html > > >to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,: > > > >http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-stateme nt/2003-December/ > >003247.html > > > >The discussion went on for a little bit after that, without, as far as > >I can tell, any support for your position. I do, however, support your > >forwarding of your unresolved comments to the IESG during the IETF last > >call. > > > Right. Note that 2418 explicitly notes that rough consensus is not the > same as unanmity -- chairs are perfectly free to declare consensus even > if there are some objections to a document. > > > --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb > > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:57:17 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08927 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F21361C0F; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:15:25 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu (klutz.cs.utk.edu [160.36.56.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FE861BFC for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:15:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD683AFC78; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:15:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20457-09; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:15:21 -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 8C396AFCA6; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:15:21 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <5E1AB742-3FEC-11D8-A1FF-000393CC2112@acm.org> References: <5E1AB742-3FEC-11D8-A1FF-000393CC2112@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Keith Moore Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:16:05 -0500 To: avri@acm.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, Keith Moore , iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit > While we did call rough consensus despite your comments, and those of > Todd Glassey and Alex Conta, we did not ignore your comments and they > were included in the report on the rough consensus: > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > December/003245.html that's a stretch. I certainly didn't recognize a response to any of my comments in this "report". > to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,: > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > December/003247.html yes, I was commenting on your complete failure to evaluate my comments. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:57:17 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08930 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id EED3C61C1B; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:23:18 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu (klutz.cs.utk.edu [160.36.56.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6E9D61BFC for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:23:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CFEFAFCA3; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:23:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21812-07; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:23:15 -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 C4AD6AFC2D; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:23:14 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20040106170558.C666A7B43@berkshire.research.att.com> References: <20040106170558.C666A7B43@berkshire.research.att.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Keith Moore Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:23:56 -0500 To: "Steven M. Bellovin" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, Keith Moore , iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit > Right. Note that 2418 explicitly notes that rough consensus is not the > same as unanmity -- chairs are perfectly free to declare consensus even > if there are some objections to a document. True. However, in 13 or so years in IETF this is the first time I can recall that a chair has insisted that last call comments be considered valid only if the group has expressed affirmative consensus on them. I believe WG participants have come to expect last call comments to be evaluated for reasonableness, not that they're being asked to reach a separate consensus on every issue raised in last call. This insistence by the chair seems especially odd for a document which is not a consensus statement, but a "list of problems that are believed to exist by a significant constituency". We don't have even rough consensus on this list of problems, what we have is the biases and editorial decisions of the authors and chairs. Also, we normally place an even higher value on correctness than we do on consensus, and most of my comments were specifically intended as corrections to inaccurate statements and exaggerations that are in the document. If IESG doesn't agree that these statements need to be corrected, well, at least someone besides the WG chairs will have considered it. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:57:17 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08932 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0746E61BF5; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 03:02:31 +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 39BCD61BE1 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 03:02:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from [147.28.0.62] (helo=acm.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD) id 1AdgY7-0006Pb-IQ; Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:02:27 +0000 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:02:23 +0900 Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v553) From: avri@acm.org To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <61010DFD-3FE7-11D8-93B4-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> Message-Id: <5E1AB742-3FEC-11D8-A1FF-000393CC2112@acm.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) 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: 7bit On tisdag, jan 6, 2004, at 10:26 Asia/Seoul, Keith Moore wrote: > >> To the group: Apart from this one message from John, and a "ship it" >> message from Brian, I have seen no further Last Call comments to the >> IETF list or the IESG list. Is this in line with your perceptions, or >> did my search of my mailboxes miss something? > > I submitted comments on November 20; they are in the list archives at > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > November/003225.html > > since these appear to have been ignored by the WG management, (i.e. > the chairs declared "rough consensus" without even responding to these > comments), I believe IESG should consider them as comments for its > Last Call. While we did call rough consensus despite your comments, and those of Todd Glassey and Alex Conta, we did not ignore your comments and they were included in the report on the rough consensus: http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-December/ 003245.html to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,: http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-December/ 003247.html The discussion went on for a little bit after that, without, as far as I can tell, any support for your position. I do, however, support your forwarding of your unresolved comments to the IESG during the IETF last call. a. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:57:18 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08933 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB00C61BF7; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 04:13:29 +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 2C34A61BF6; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 04:13:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 18:49:35 -0800 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Keith Moore Message-ID: <1755800287.1073328575@localhost> In-Reply-To: <61010DFD-3FE7-11D8-93B4-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> References: <1745064319.1073317837@halvestr-w2k1> <61010DFD-3FE7-11D8-93B4-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> 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 Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit Keith, the comments made at WG Last Call are supposed to form part of the decision of the WG Chairs to declare consensus; I don't understand any part of the IETF process as "the IESG must revisit every issue that was raised and/or resolved during WG Last Call when reviewing the result of the IETF Last Call". If you wish to raise some of these commments as IETF Last Call comments, I think you'll have to take the responsibility for raising these issues at IETF last call yourself. In a group that is so much concerned with process or the lack of it, the least we can do is to try to follow what process we have. Harald From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:57:18 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08940 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0838E61C73; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:37:08 +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 AD6E461C4C for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:37:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from txc.com ([172.17.0.134]) by pguin2.txc.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i07Hb0023030; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 12:37:02 -0500 Message-ID: <3FFC43BC.3080101@txc.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 12:37:00 -0500 From: Alex Conta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter References: <3FFBE19A.EF91D961@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <3FFBE19A.EF91D961@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms010509060505020605020609" Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org 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 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms010509060505020605020609 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian, If I understand correctly, this document is supposed to be a collection of descriptions of problems perceived by the IETF community. If someone makes comments during the last call (WG or IESG), one obvious reason is that it was felt/perceived that the collection is incomplete, or one or more descriptions are incomplete. So obviously, resolving/including the comments is making the document more complete. If the goal is to have this document as complete as it can be, and as inclusive as it can be, as I think the goal is, I do not understand why would one, sharing the same goal, oppose the comment resolution. It is true the document is not a standard document, but it is an important part and important reference in the work being done to resolve the current IETF problems. Furthermore, I am afraid that an action, that could suggest that this document is in reality just a formality, is dangerous, in that would undermine the confidence of the IETF community that the IETF management is genuine in its leading toward resolving the problems which that community perceived. Regards, Alex Brian E Carpenter wrote: > I too have been frustrated in the past (but not in this case) by > comments not being accepted by document editors and/or WG chairs. > But ultimately it is a judgement call: are these commments substantive > enough to merit a new consensus call, or are they relatively unimportant? > Whether other people support the comments is a factor in making that judgement. > So I have some sympathy with a WG chair deciding that last call comments > that do not attract support on the list can be set aside- but it is > of course an appealable decision, at least for a standards track document. > > My personal view on the document in question is that we are well > beyond the point of diminishing returns in tuning the text, and it should > be published as it is. That doesn't mean that some of the recent comments > aren't intrinsically valid - it just isn't worth any more effort. This document > has largely served its purpose as a draft, and all that is usefully left is to > archive it as an RFC. > > Brian > > Robert Snively wrote: > >>I share Keith's concern, both about the response to >>his comments, and to the response about my comments >>from about the same time. >> >>Bob Snively >>+1-408-333-8135 >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] >>>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:16 AM >>>To: avri@acm.org >>>Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no; Keith Moore; iesg@ietf.org >>>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC >>> >>> >>> >>>>While we did call rough consensus despite your comments, >>> >>>and those of >>> >>>>Todd Glassey and Alex Conta, we did not ignore your >>> >>>comments and they >>> >>>>were included in the report on the rough consensus: >>>> >>>>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- >>>>December/003245.html >>> >>>that's a stretch. I certainly didn't recognize a response to >>>any of my >>>comments in this "report". >>> >>> >>>>to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,: >>>> >>>>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- >>>>December/003247.html >>> >>>yes, I was commenting on your complete failure to evaluate my >>>comments. > > > --------------ms010509060505020605020609 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 KoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTA0MDEwNzE3MzcwMFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFJFFVvdZAS1o6c71 4NypfvRNWfmbMFIGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFFMEMwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCA MA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMIHyBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQx geQwgeEwgcwxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBU cnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBB IEluY29ycC4gQnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFz cyAxIENBIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQCEAxY aM16ATcjBamVuftCOMIwgfQGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYHkoIHhMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJp U2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9 d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5M VEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNj cmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAMWGjNegE3IwWplbn7QjjCMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBAQUABIIBAHZY7e2gPrH7I6kZG4BWSPzULe93jYTtYQ4PMPVbyVm6C8BC5nbi3/xSj1ZC DqslIyefbyjyyXWpUsr+AKeSAaLuegEdxF3laMPMwFkPFN5kcf7BK8Z0vmDsGdwPdMiMZ2t+ XgfxaUR+1Dez4HBsy+6qRhPfwFj/Pm9bslSmy9HLAXtWGDh+w14CwPhIW6fhKizX8iwDM06N uNaFEFUks1gz1FksqafCmp2hig2On/Wb/2hIz++4e/pD6qUW7OtAOUMgUv2fpQjfmbKOcn6X lAClLdErnUkqtb8LvS8uZfFpGx2byrxhL3H98tHZOguopVsKubPx6L/vKAtQWarJYDMAAAAA AAA= --------------ms010509060505020605020609-- From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:57:20 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09023 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1828561BFC; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:16:39 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from blasphemy.brocade.com (f070.brocade.com [66.243.153.70]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE5561B7E for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:16:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from hq-ex-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-ex-3 [192.168.38.35]) by blasphemy.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 815751417D; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:16:35 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:16:35 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC Thread-Index: AcPUkK7hAJo2y9EgQym7JsxAZGEQPwAASW8A From: "Robert Snively" To: "Keith Moore" , Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org 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 I share Keith's concern, both about the response to his comments, and to the response about my comments from about the same time. Bob Snively +1-408-333-8135 > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:16 AM > To: avri@acm.org > Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no; Keith Moore; iesg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC >=20 >=20 > > While we did call rough consensus despite your comments,=20 > and those of =20 > > Todd Glassey and Alex Conta, we did not ignore your=20 > comments and they =20 > > were included in the report on the rough consensus: > > > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-=20 > > December/003245.html >=20 > that's a stretch. I certainly didn't recognize a response to=20 > any of my =20 > comments in this "report". >=20 > > to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,: > > > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-=20 > > December/003247.html >=20 > yes, I was commenting on your complete failure to evaluate my=20 > comments. >=20 >=20 >=20 From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:57:21 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09022 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44BD161C05; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:16:37 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from blasphemy.brocade.com (f070.brocade.com [66.243.153.70]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B7761BB4 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:16:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from hq-ex-3.corp.brocade.com (hq-ex-3 [192.168.38.35]) by blasphemy.brocade.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CD514361; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:16:35 -0800 (PST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:16:34 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC Thread-Index: AcPVCpH85UDpwMamRBWU8GUt3jXaUgALtqRg From: "Robert Snively" To: "Brian E Carpenter" , Cc: iesg@ietf.org 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 Brian, Thank you. Does the rough consensus letter go along with the draft as an annex so that the information contained in it does not get lost? Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@zurich.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:38 AM > To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no > Cc: iesg@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC >=20 >=20 > I too have been frustrated in the past (but not in this case) by > comments not being accepted by document editors and/or WG chairs. > But ultimately it is a judgement call: are these commments substantive > enough to merit a new consensus call, or are they relatively=20 > unimportant? > Whether other people support the comments is a factor in=20 > making that judgement. > So I have some sympathy with a WG chair deciding that last=20 > call comments > that do not attract support on the list can be set aside- but it is > of course an appealable decision, at least for a standards=20 > track document. >=20 > My personal view on the document in question is that we are well > beyond the point of diminishing returns in tuning the text,=20 > and it should > be published as it is. That doesn't mean that some of the=20 > recent comments=20 > aren't intrinsically valid - it just isn't worth any more=20 > effort. This document > has largely served its purpose as a draft, and all that is=20 > usefully left is to=20 > archive it as an RFC. >=20 > Brian >=20 > Robert Snively wrote: > >=20 > > I share Keith's concern, both about the response to > > his comments, and to the response about my comments > > from about the same time. > >=20 > > Bob Snively > > +1-408-333-8135 > >=20 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:16 AM > > > To: avri@acm.org > > > Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no; Keith Moore; iesg@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to=20 > Informational RFC > > > > > > > > > > While we did call rough consensus despite your comments, > > > and those of > > > > Todd Glassey and Alex Conta, we did not ignore your > > > comments and they > > > > were included in the report on the rough consensus: > > > > > > > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > > > > December/003245.html > > > > > > that's a stretch. I certainly didn't recognize a response to > > > any of my > > > comments in this "report". > > > > > > > to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,: > > > > > > > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > > > > December/003247.html > > > > > > yes, I was commenting on your complete failure to evaluate my > > > comments. >=20 >=20 From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:57:48 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09150 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D8561BF6; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 05:40:00 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu (klutz.cs.utk.edu [160.36.56.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8721161BE5; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 05:39:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A049AFD5C; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:39:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15638-03; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:39:44 -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 386A0AFCBC; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:39:44 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1755800287.1073328575@localhost> References: <1745064319.1073317837@halvestr-w2k1> <61010DFD-3FE7-11D8-93B4-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> <1755800287.1073328575@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <72D85E42-4002-11D8-93B4-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Keith Moore Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 23:40:26 -0500 To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, Keith Moore , iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit > If you wish to raise some of these commments as IETF Last Call > comments, I think you'll have to take the responsibility for raising > these issues at IETF last call yourself. I thought that is what I was requesting. And we do have a tradition of considering last call comments even if they are late. > In a group that is so much concerned with process or the lack of it, > the least we can do is to try to follow what process we have. Well, this group certainly didn't make much of a point of following process. The document doesn't represent consensus of the WG; rather it represents some people's opinions about the problems with this organization while ignoring others' opinions. So for the WG chairs to claim that they only needed to consider last call comments for which there was consensus seems a bit odd - apparently they thought they needed consensus for last call comments but not for the actual content of the document. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 10:57:48 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09148 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767A461BB4; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:51:17 +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 2B78D61BAF for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 19:51:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from tsg (206.san-jose-06-08rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.194.206]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc11) with SMTP id <20040107185111111006cq8he>; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:51:12 +0000 Message-ID: <012601c3d54e$8deed1f0$010aff0a@tsg> From: "todd glassey" To: "Alex Conta" , "Brian E Carpenter" References: <3FFBE19A.EF91D961@zurich.ibm.com> <3FFC43BC.3080101@txc.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:46:21 -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 V6.00.2800.1165 Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC 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 Alex, the issues is the process for defining what constrains an acceptable inclusion. The question is one of how commentary inside a WG is included into the formal recorded of that WG and what is edited or censored out. And this of course is the bigger issue to address. Todd Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Conta" To: "Brian E Carpenter" Cc: ; Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:37 AM Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC > Brian, > > If I understand correctly, this document is supposed to be a collection > of descriptions of problems perceived by the IETF community. > > If someone makes comments during the last call (WG or IESG), one obvious > reason is that it was felt/perceived that the collection is incomplete, > or one or more descriptions are incomplete. So obviously, > resolving/including the comments is making the document more complete. > > If the goal is to have this document as complete as it can be, and as > inclusive as it can be, as I think the goal is, I do not understand why > would one, sharing the same goal, oppose the comment resolution. It is > true the document is not a standard document, but it is an important > part and important reference in the work being done to resolve the > current IETF problems. > > Furthermore, I am afraid that an action, that could suggest that this > document is in reality just a formality, is dangerous, in that would > undermine the confidence of the IETF community that the IETF management > is genuine in its leading toward resolving the problems which that > community perceived. > > Regards, > Alex > > > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > I too have been frustrated in the past (but not in this case) by > > comments not being accepted by document editors and/or WG chairs. > > But ultimately it is a judgement call: are these commments substantive > > enough to merit a new consensus call, or are they relatively unimportant? > > Whether other people support the comments is a factor in making that judgement. > > So I have some sympathy with a WG chair deciding that last call comments > > that do not attract support on the list can be set aside- but it is > > of course an appealable decision, at least for a standards track document. > > > > My personal view on the document in question is that we are well > > beyond the point of diminishing returns in tuning the text, and it should > > be published as it is. That doesn't mean that some of the recent comments > > aren't intrinsically valid - it just isn't worth any more effort. This document > > has largely served its purpose as a draft, and all that is usefully left is to > > archive it as an RFC. > > > > Brian > > > > Robert Snively wrote: > > > >>I share Keith's concern, both about the response to > >>his comments, and to the response about my comments > >>from about the same time. > >> > >>Bob Snively > >>+1-408-333-8135 > >> > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] > >>>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:16 AM > >>>To: avri@acm.org > >>>Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no; Keith Moore; iesg@ietf.org > >>>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>While we did call rough consensus despite your comments, > >>> > >>>and those of > >>> > >>>>Todd Glassey and Alex Conta, we did not ignore your > >>> > >>>comments and they > >>> > >>>>were included in the report on the rough consensus: > >>>> > >>>>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-stat ement/2003- > >>>>December/003245.html > >>> > >>>that's a stretch. I certainly didn't recognize a response to > >>>any of my > >>>comments in this "report". > >>> > >>> > >>>>to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,: > >>>> > >>>>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-stat ement/2003- > >>>>December/003247.html > >>> > >>>yes, I was commenting on your complete failure to evaluate my > >>>comments. > > > > > > > > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 11:30:05 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11737 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:30:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1BFD61C11; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:59:16 +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 2285961C06; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:59:14 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 08:38:21 -0800 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Alex Conta Message-ID: <1805525288.1073378301@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3FFADF2A.5030403@txc.com> References: <1745064319.1073317837@halvestr-w2k1> <3FFADF2A.5030403@txc.com> 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 Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit Thanks - that's why I asked! I searched my folders for messages with the words "last call" and "problem" in the subject, and your message had "comments to "draft-ietf-problem-issue-statement-05.txt"" as its subject, so I missed it. Will add the comments now. Harald --On 6. januar 2004 11:15 -0500 Alex Conta wrote: > Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > >> Thank you for your comments. >> [...] >> As an experiment, I've started tracking issues on the following URL: >> >> >> >> To the group: Apart from this one message from John, and a "ship it" >> message from Brian, I have seen no further Last Call comments to the >> IETF list or the IESG list. Is this in line with your perceptions, or >> did my search of my mailboxes miss something? >> >> Harald > > I am not sure how messages for your tracking issues experiment were > selected. > > I have sent comments for the "problem statement" document to the IESG > list on December 18, 2003, which is before the end of the last call > period on December 23, 2003. I could not see them captured on the site > indicated by your URL. I have the message in my "sent" folder, in case > there is a need for a resend. > > Alex > > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 11:30:05 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11736 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:30:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4C861C17; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 05:15:57 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu (klutz.cs.utk.edu [160.36.56.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFDEB61B9D for ; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 05:15:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD0BAFB6F; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:15:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 13623-02; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:15:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from envy.indecency.org (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3316DAFBDF; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:15:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 23:08:18 -0500 From: Keith Moore To: Brian E Carpenter Message-Id: <20040107230818.6c47a407.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <3FFBE19A.EF91D961@zurich.ibm.com> References: <3FFBE19A.EF91D961@zurich.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.8a (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, iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit > My personal view on the document in question is that we are well > beyond the point of diminishing returns in tuning the text, and it should > be published as it is. I'd be fine with that if the document didn't misrepresent what it is. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 11:45:54 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08931 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3837561BE2; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:50:43 +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 966E061AD5; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:50:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:50:38 -0800 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: john.loughney@nokia.com, iesg@ietf.org Message-ID: <1745064319.1073317837@halvestr-w2k1> In-Reply-To: References: 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 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: 7bit Thank you for your comments. I think 1) is already addressed in the abstract, but that and 2) are easy to do with an RFC Editor note; 3) is somewhat more iffy to my mind, since there's actually some language in section 1.3 already. As an experiment, I've started tracking issues on the following URL: To the group: Apart from this one message from John, and a "ship it" message from Brian, I have seen no further Last Call comments to the IETF list or the IESG list. Is this in line with your perceptions, or did my search of my mailboxes miss something? Harald From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 11:45:54 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08773 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:56:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD1061BEE; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 02:26:03 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu (klutz.cs.utk.edu [160.36.56.50]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC4D61BE1; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 02:26:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C32DAFBE5; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:25:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtp.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26753-14; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:25:58 -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 CAA7CAFCDD; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:25:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1745064319.1073317837@halvestr-w2k1> References: <1745064319.1073317837@halvestr-w2k1> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <61010DFD-3FE7-11D8-93B4-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Keith Moore Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:26:40 -0500 To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, problem-statement@alvestrand.no, Keith Moore , iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit > To the group: Apart from this one message from John, and a "ship it" > message from Brian, I have seen no further Last Call comments to the > IETF list or the IESG list. Is this in line with your perceptions, or > did my search of my mailboxes miss something? I submitted comments on November 20; they are in the list archives at http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-November/ 003225.html since these appear to have been ignored by the WG management, (i.e. the chairs declared "rough consensus" without even responding to these comments), I believe IESG should consider them as comments for its Last Call. From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 11:45:54 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA09149 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7840B61BED; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 02:37:52 +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 9BB4A61BE1 for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 02:37:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-129.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.129]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2004010601374901200hrtfre> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Tue, 6 Jan 2004 01:37:49 +0000 Message-ID: <030201c3d3f5$bfc23550$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: References: <1745064319.1073317837@halvestr-w2k1> <61010DFD-3FE7-11D8-93B4-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:38:12 -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 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 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 And my "echo Brian - just ship it" is at http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-November/003214.html. I replied to Brian, who replied to the WG last call request, and it shows that way in the archives - should have been visible, I would have thought. Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Moore" To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" Cc: ; ; "Keith Moore" ; Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 7:26 PM Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC > > > To the group: Apart from this one message from John, and a "ship it" > > message from Brian, I have seen no further Last Call comments to the > > IETF list or the IESG list. Is this in line with your perceptions, or > > did my search of my mailboxes miss something? > > I submitted comments on November 20; they are in the list archives at > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-November/ > 003225.html > > since these appear to have been ignored by the WG management, (i.e. the > chairs declared "rough consensus" without even responding to these > comments), I believe IESG should consider them as comments for its Last > Call. > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 11:45:55 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08929 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D3AF61C12; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:36:55 +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 3B73361BAF; Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:36:51 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:01:06 -0800 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: Keith Moore , "Steven M. Bellovin" Message-ID: <1893289896.1073466066@localhost> In-Reply-To: References: <20040106170558.C666A7B43@berkshire.research.att.com> 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 Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit --On 6. januar 2004 14:23 -0500 Keith Moore wrote: >> Right. Note that 2418 explicitly notes that rough consensus is not the >> same as unanmity -- chairs are perfectly free to declare consensus even >> if there are some objections to a document. > > True. However, in 13 or so years in IETF this is the first time I can > recall that a chair has insisted that last call comments be considered > valid only if the group has expressed affirmative consensus on them. I > believe WG participants have come to expect last call comments to be > evaluated for reasonableness, not that they're being asked to reach a > separate consensus on every issue raised in last call. Keith, the mechanism of requiring at least one voice apart from the commenter to speak up in support in order for a point to be considered has been used before - the case I remember most vividly was Dan Bernstein's objections to a number of points related to the DRUMS WG's revisions of the Internet Mail protocols. In this case, there was no explicit invocation of such a requirement by the chairs, but there were voices on the list saying "just ship it". Anyway, your comments have now been entered in my comments tracker, and the IESG will evaluate them. Please review to see that they are entered (and named) reasonably. Harald From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 11:45:55 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08939 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:57:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0154361C06; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:06:01 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mail-dark.research.att.com (mail-dark.research.att.com [192.20.225.112]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4847961BFC for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 18:06:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-blue.research.att.com (H-135-207-30-102.research.att.com [135.207.30.102]) by mail-dark.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F45FE80FE; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:07:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from bigmail.research.att.com (bigmail.research.att.com [135.207.30.101]) by mail-blue.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2ADF3A89; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:02:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from berkshire.research.att.com (sigaba.research.att.com [135.207.23.169]) by bigmail.research.att.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i06H5xZ25863; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:05:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from research.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berkshire.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C666A7B43; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:05:58 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.3 04/04/2003 with nmh-1.0.4 From: "Steven M. Bellovin" To: avri@acm.org In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:02:23 +0900." <5E1AB742-3FEC-11D8-A1FF-000393CC2112@acm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 12:05:58 -0500 Message-Id: <20040106170558.C666A7B43@berkshire.research.att.com> Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org 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 In message <5E1AB742-3FEC-11D8-A1FF-000393CC2112@acm.org>, avri@acm.org writes: > >On tisdag, jan 6, 2004, at 10:26 Asia/Seoul, Keith Moore wrote: > >> >>> To the group: Apart from this one message from John, and a "ship it" >>> message from Brian, I have seen no further Last Call comments to the >>> IETF list or the IESG list. Is this in line with your perceptions, or >>> did my search of my mailboxes miss something? >> >> I submitted comments on November 20; they are in the list archives at >> >> http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- >> November/003225.html >> >> since these appear to have been ignored by the WG management, (i.e. >> the chairs declared "rough consensus" without even responding to these >> comments), I believe IESG should consider them as comments for its >> Last Call. > > >While we did call rough consensus despite your comments, and those of >Todd Glassey and Alex Conta, we did not ignore your comments and they >were included in the report on the rough consensus: > >http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-December/ >003245.html >to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,: > >http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-December/ >003247.html > >The discussion went on for a little bit after that, without, as far as >I can tell, any support for your position. I do, however, support your >forwarding of your unresolved comments to the IESG during the IETF last >call. Right. Note that 2418 explicitly notes that rough consensus is not the same as unanmity -- chairs are perfectly free to declare consensus even if there are some objections to a document. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 11:46:44 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12966 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:46:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 626B461CEB; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:26:49 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mtagate5.de.ibm.com (mtagate5.de.ibm.com [195.212.29.154]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F39161CEB for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:26:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.180]) by mtagate5.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i09AQke2040846; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:26:46 GMT Received: from collon.zurich.ibm.com (collon.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.143]) by d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i09AQjNa279284; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:26:45 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com ([9.145.150.82]) by collon.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28450; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:26:42 +0100 Message-ID: <3FFE81A3.93B931C6@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:25:39 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Conta References: <3FFBE19A.EF91D961@zurich.ibm.com> <3FFC43BC.3080101@txc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit Alex, My personal goal is not to have the document as complete as it can be, but to encourage the IESG to continue the work it has started to fix the most serious problems. Brian Alex Conta wrote: > > Brian, > > If I understand correctly, this document is supposed to be a collection > of descriptions of problems perceived by the IETF community. > > If someone makes comments during the last call (WG or IESG), one obvious > reason is that it was felt/perceived that the collection is incomplete, > or one or more descriptions are incomplete. So obviously, > resolving/including the comments is making the document more complete. > > If the goal is to have this document as complete as it can be, and as > inclusive as it can be, as I think the goal is, I do not understand why > would one, sharing the same goal, oppose the comment resolution. It is > true the document is not a standard document, but it is an important > part and important reference in the work being done to resolve the > current IETF problems. > > Furthermore, I am afraid that an action, that could suggest that this > document is in reality just a formality, is dangerous, in that would > undermine the confidence of the IETF community that the IETF management > is genuine in its leading toward resolving the problems which that > community perceived. > > Regards, > Alex > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > I too have been frustrated in the past (but not in this case) by > > comments not being accepted by document editors and/or WG chairs. > > But ultimately it is a judgement call: are these commments substantive > > enough to merit a new consensus call, or are they relatively unimportant? > > Whether other people support the comments is a factor in making that judgement. > > So I have some sympathy with a WG chair deciding that last call comments > > that do not attract support on the list can be set aside- but it is > > of course an appealable decision, at least for a standards track document. > > > > My personal view on the document in question is that we are well > > beyond the point of diminishing returns in tuning the text, and it should > > be published as it is. That doesn't mean that some of the recent comments > > aren't intrinsically valid - it just isn't worth any more effort. This document > > has largely served its purpose as a draft, and all that is usefully left is to > > archive it as an RFC. > > > > Brian > > > > Robert Snively wrote: > > > >>I share Keith's concern, both about the response to > >>his comments, and to the response about my comments > >>from about the same time. > >> > >>Bob Snively > >>+1-408-333-8135 > >> > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] > >>>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:16 AM > >>>To: avri@acm.org > >>>Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no; Keith Moore; iesg@ietf.org > >>>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>While we did call rough consensus despite your comments, > >>> > >>>and those of > >>> > >>>>Todd Glassey and Alex Conta, we did not ignore your > >>> > >>>comments and they > >>> > >>>>were included in the report on the rough consensus: > >>>> > >>>>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > >>>>December/003245.html > >>> > >>>that's a stretch. I certainly didn't recognize a response to > >>>any of my > >>>comments in this "report". > >>> > >>> > >>>>to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,: > >>>> > >>>>http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > >>>>December/003247.html > >>> > >>>yes, I was commenting on your complete failure to evaluate my > >>>comments. > > > > > > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 12:15:54 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11735 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:30:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD3D61BFA; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:15:42 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from pguin2.txc.com (transfire.txc.com [208.5.237.254]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7E661BE5; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:15:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from txc.com ([172.17.0.134]) by pguin2.txc.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id i06GFc002404; Tue, 6 Jan 2004 11:15:38 -0500 Message-ID: <3FFADF2A.5030403@txc.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 11:15:38 -0500 From: Alex Conta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand References: <1745064319.1073317837@halvestr-w2k1> In-Reply-To: <1745064319.1073317837@halvestr-w2k1> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms010404000103000002060704" Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org 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 This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format. --------------ms010404000103000002060704 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > Thank you for your comments. > [...] > As an experiment, I've started tracking issues on the following URL: > > > > To the group: Apart from this one message from John, and a "ship it" > message from Brian, I have seen no further Last Call comments to the > IETF list or the IESG list. Is this in line with your perceptions, or > did my search of my mailboxes miss something? > > Harald I am not sure how messages for your tracking issues experiment were selected. I have sent comments for the "problem statement" document to the IESG list on December 18, 2003, which is before the end of the last call period on December 23, 2003. I could not see them captured on the site indicated by your URL. I have the message in my "sent" folder, in case there is a need for a resend. Alex --------------ms010404000103000002060704 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 KoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTA0MDEwNjE2MTUzOFowIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFDUJ1PEG7c8xhaSu TrPd/Dx0oIopMFIGCSqGSIb3DQEJDzFFMEMwCgYIKoZIhvcNAwcwDgYIKoZIhvcNAwICAgCA MA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgFAMAcGBSsOAwIHMA0GCCqGSIb3DQMCAgEoMIHyBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQx geQwgeEwgcwxFzAVBgNVBAoTDlZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuMR8wHQYDVQQLExZWZXJpU2lnbiBU cnVzdCBOZXR3b3JrMUYwRAYDVQQLEz13d3cudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3JlcG9zaXRvcnkvUlBB IEluY29ycC4gQnkgUmVmLixMSUFCLkxURChjKTk4MUgwRgYDVQQDEz9WZXJpU2lnbiBDbGFz cyAxIENBIEluZGl2aWR1YWwgU3Vic2NyaWJlci1QZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQCEAxY aM16ATcjBamVuftCOMIwgfQGCyqGSIb3DQEJEAILMYHkoIHhMIHMMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJp U2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazFGMEQGA1UECxM9 d3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L1JQQSBJbmNvcnAuIEJ5IFJlZi4sTElBQi5M VEQoYyk5ODFIMEYGA1UEAxM/VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBDQSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNj cmliZXItUGVyc29uYSBOb3QgVmFsaWRhdGVkAhAMWGjNegE3IwWplbn7QjjCMA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBAQUABIIBAIc/1d1r+cCGC+vxsF1yFP6SnIDSEUMnj6TzAmVEtdgV15XdNqE2sEoI8F6Q vKsh7yBoGgK/9JCzZObSPVYR83qpyzI98RVv3YdHQrJqACND/lPWs9dRGU3zZxAQe/Z7tCdr aDyWBWjqds6RRROolDobYzm14gR+e/eXxLGAB7+21Clt/KgKFmjvShjNGks7BWK9fnbr0Glz LNNI7vM+eJrk9MRaRFx2m6W2cNfkLdAP+wfTcT7jmUW6eueocvYIk0199UPkKoG98n/m8Kvg oM4h0UjoRy8LAJk43i6p3eHLnB7JJQCQU/qtti+WhR887HC1PQmG/vSeGIqme0a81iMAAAAA AAA= --------------ms010404000103000002060704-- From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 9 12:35:55 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12967 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:46:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22FCB61DEC; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:27:39 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com (mtagate1.de.ibm.com [195.212.29.150]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C580761DEB for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:27:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.180]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i09ARapS047548; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 10:27:36 GMT Received: from collon.zurich.ibm.com (collon.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.143]) by d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id i09ARaNa243118; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:27:36 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com ([9.145.150.82]) by collon.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA42342; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 11:27:33 +0100 Message-ID: <3FFE81D5.71783D99@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:26:29 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Snively References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no, iesg@ietf.org 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: 7bit Not normally, afaik. WG mail archives are the repository for this sort of thing. Brian Robert Snively wrote: > > Brian, > > Thank you. Does the rough consensus letter go along with > the draft as an annex so that the information contained in > it does not get lost? > > Bob > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@zurich.ibm.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 2:38 AM > > To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no > > Cc: iesg@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to Informational RFC > > > > > > I too have been frustrated in the past (but not in this case) by > > comments not being accepted by document editors and/or WG chairs. > > But ultimately it is a judgement call: are these commments substantive > > enough to merit a new consensus call, or are they relatively > > unimportant? > > Whether other people support the comments is a factor in > > making that judgement. > > So I have some sympathy with a WG chair deciding that last > > call comments > > that do not attract support on the list can be set aside- but it is > > of course an appealable decision, at least for a standards > > track document. > > > > My personal view on the document in question is that we are well > > beyond the point of diminishing returns in tuning the text, > > and it should > > be published as it is. That doesn't mean that some of the > > recent comments > > aren't intrinsically valid - it just isn't worth any more > > effort. This document > > has largely served its purpose as a draft, and all that is > > usefully left is to > > archive it as an RFC. > > > > Brian > > > > Robert Snively wrote: > > > > > > I share Keith's concern, both about the response to > > > his comments, and to the response about my comments > > > from about the same time. > > > > > > Bob Snively > > > +1-408-333-8135 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@cs.utk.edu] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 11:16 AM > > > > To: avri@acm.org > > > > Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no; Keith Moore; iesg@ietf.org > > > > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Statement' to > > Informational RFC > > > > > > > > > > > > > While we did call rough consensus despite your comments, > > > > and those of > > > > > Todd Glassey and Alex Conta, we did not ignore your > > > > comments and they > > > > > were included in the report on the rough consensus: > > > > > > > > > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > > > > > December/003245.html > > > > > > > > that's a stretch. I certainly didn't recognize a response to > > > > any of my > > > > comments in this "report". > > > > > > > > > to which you commented, albeit not in agreement,: > > > > > > > > > > http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003- > > > > > December/003247.html > > > > > > > > yes, I was commenting on your complete failure to evaluate my > > > > comments. > > > > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Mon Jan 12 16:07:56 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19375 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:07:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA3A61C11; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:07:23 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9473961B91 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:07:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19334; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:07:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200401122107.QAA19334@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:07:16 -0500 Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt X-BeenThere: problem-statement@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list Reply-To: Internet-Drafts@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 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Problem Statement Working Group of the IETF. Title : IETF Problem Resolution Process Author(s) : E. Davies, J. Hofmann Filename : draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2004-1-12 This document suggests processes to address some of the problems identified in the IETF Problem Statement. This document decomposes each of the problems described in the problem statement into a few areas for improvement, categorizes them either as problems affecting the routine processes used to create standards or problems affecting the fundamental structure and practices of the IETF, and suggests ways to address the problems with the routine processes that can be implemented as soon as possible without disrupting other areas of the IETF processes. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-1-12154449.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2004-1-12154449.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Tue Jan 13 05:33:48 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA04674 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:33:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7025C61B98; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:33:17 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Received: from znsgs01r.nortelnetworks.com (znsgs01r.nortelnetworks.com [47.166.48.91]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D11E61B92 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:33:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from zwcwc012.europe.nortel.com (zwcwc012.europe.nortel.com [47.160.46.124]) by znsgs01r.nortelnetworks.com (Switch-2.2.6/Switch-2.2.0) with ESMTP id i0DAXDQ05390 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:33:14 GMT Received: by zwcwc012.europe.nortel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:33:14 -0000 Message-ID: <4103264BC8D3D51180B7002048400C45043ABDD6@zhard0jd.europe.nortel.com> From: "Elwyn Davies" To: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:33:07 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3D9C0.A1ED6024" Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt 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 message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D9C0.A1ED6024 Content-Type: text/plain FYI... The new version of the draft adds in the note about the status of the contents discussed during Last Call. Regards, Elwyn > -----Original Message----- > From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org] > Sent: 12 January 2004 21:07 > Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no > Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Problem Statement Working > Group of the IETF. > > Title : IETF Problem Resolution Process > Author(s) : E. Davies, J. Hofmann > Filename : draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 2004-1-12 > > This document suggests processes to address some of the problems > identified in the IETF Problem Statement. > This document decomposes each of the problems described in the > problem statement into a few areas for improvement, categorizes them > either as problems affecting the routine processes used to create > standards or problems affecting the fundamental structure and > practices of the IETF, and suggests ways to address the problems with > the routine processes that can be implemented as soon as possible > without disrupting other areas of the IETF processes. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt > > To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to > ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body > of the message. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login > with the username > "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, > type "cd internet-drafts" and then > "get draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt". > > A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > > > Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. > > Send a message to: > mailserv@ietf.org. > In the body type: > "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt". > > NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in > MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this > feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" > command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or > a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant > mail readers > exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with > "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split > up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on > how to manipulate these messages. > > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D9C0.A1ED6024 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt

FYI...

The new version of the draft adds in the note about = the status of the contents discussed during Last Call.

Regards,
Elwyn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org [mailto:Internet-Drafts@ietf.org= ]
> Sent: 12 January 2004 21:07
> Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no
> Subject: I-D = ACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the = on-line
> Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Problem = Statement Working
> Group of the IETF.
>
>       = Title           : IETF = Problem Resolution Process
>       = Author(s)       : E. Davies, J. = Hofmann
>       = Filename        : = draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt
>       = Pages           : = 22
>       = Date            : = 2004-1-12
>      
> This document suggests processes to address = some of the problems
> identified in the IETF Problem = Statement.
> This document decomposes each of the problems = described in the
> problem statement into a few areas for = improvement, categorizes them
> either as problems affecting the routine = processes used to create
> standards or problems affecting the fundamental = structure and
> practices of the IETF, and suggests ways to = address the problems with
> the routine processes that can be implemented = as soon as possible
> without disrupting other areas of the IETF = processes.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem= -process-04.txt
>
> To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement = list, send a message to
> ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe = in the body
> of the message.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous = FTP. Login
> with the username
> "anonymous" and a password of your = e-mail address. After logging in,
> type "cd internet-drafts" and = then
>       "get = draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt".
>
> A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be = found in
> http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
> Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by = e-mail.
>
> Send a message to:
>       = mailserv@ietf.org.
> In the body type:
>       "FILE = /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt".
>      
> NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return = the document in
>       MIME-encoded = form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
>       feature, insert = the command "ENCODING mime" before the = "FILE"
>       command.  = To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
>       a MIME-compliant = mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant
> mail readers
>       exhibit = different behavior, especially when dealing with
>       = "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been = split
>       up into multiple = messages), so check your local documentation on
>       how to = manipulate these messages.
>       =        
>       =        
> Below is the data which will enable a MIME = compliant mail reader
> implementation to automatically retrieve the = ASCII version of the
> Internet-Draft.
>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D9C0.A1ED6024-- From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Tue Jan 13 10:37:36 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19384 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:37:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561E961C09; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:37:04 +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 ECC5661BD8 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:37:01 +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 i0DFawVM005090 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:36:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com ([10.25.65.181]) by mira-sjc5-c.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with SMTP id APV54071; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:36:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:36:54 -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: <509F4ACB-45DE-11D8-9AF0-000A95E35274@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.553) Subject: 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 As you've probably seen, there's a new revision of the process document that's been posted. It contains new text highlighting that we were not able to reach consensus on everything in the document but that it's been included as a matter of historical record. This is the version of the IESG that we are sending to the IESG for review for publication as an informational RFC. The request will again highlight that there is not consensus on portions of the document, along with the objections that were raised during WG last call. We will also be requesting IETF last call. Melinda From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Wed Jan 14 20:26:43 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA25256 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:26:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD1B61BED; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:26:11 +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 5F3B161C12 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:18:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from apache by asgard.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.14) id 1AguGa-0000eL-IR; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:17:40 -0500 X-test-idtracker: no To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no From: The IESG Message-Id: Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:17:40 -0500 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:26:10 +0100 Subject: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Resolution Process' 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 Resolution Process ' as an Informational RFC 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 2004-01-28. Note: This document is being published mainly as a record of the deliberations of the Problem WG in regard to finding a process for resolving the IETF's problems, and documents both things that were uncontroversial and things where the group failed to reach any consensus. It is being published for the historical record, not as a set of instructions for reforming the IETF. The file can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Thu Jan 15 18:02:47 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06817 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:02:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4AA561BEE; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:02:16 +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 7774861BED for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:02:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from tsg (200.san-jose-09-10rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.195.200]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12) with SMTP id <2004011523020911200plegte>; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:02:10 +0000 Message-ID: <023e01c3dbba$edde8890$010aff0a@tsg> From: "todd glassey" To: References: Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:57:15 -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 V6.00.2800.1165 Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Resolution Process' to Informational RFC 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 I have a real issue with this language as proposed herein. The Problem Statement working group was not interested in "fixing or solving the IETF's problems" or in actually identifying any problems beyond the small list that the WG Chairs and the In-crowd of the group wanted to focus on exclusively. The net of this is that so many views and concerns were omitted that the resulting documents can hardly be called a consensus except between the specific advocates of those documents. This is a demonstration of the critical failing of the IETF to adequately represent anyone but the "insiders" in any situation and clearly IMHO demonstrates the lack of Fair and Open processes. Todd Glassey ----- Original Message ----- From: "The IESG" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 3:17 PM Subject: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Resolution Process' to Informational RFC > The IESG has received a request from the Problem Statement WG to consider > the following document: > > - 'IETF Problem Resolution Process ' > as an Informational RFC > > 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 2004-01-28. > > Note: This document is being published mainly as a record of the > deliberations of the Problem WG in regard to finding a process for resolving > the IETF's problems, and documents both things that were uncontroversial > and things where the group failed to reach any consensus. It is being > published for the historical record, not as a set of instructions for > reforming the IETF. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-problem-process-04.txt > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Thu Jan 15 22:39:55 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA15268 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:39:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566B161BED; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:39:25 +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 E2DE461BB3 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 04:39:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from dfnjgl21 (c-24-1-97-129.client.comcast.net[24.1.97.129]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <20040116033921012003auere> (Authid: sdawkins@comcast.net); Fri, 16 Jan 2004 03:39:21 +0000 Message-ID: <006a01c3dbe2$5408caa0$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "todd glassey" , References: <023e01c3dbba$edde8890$010aff0a@tsg> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:39:20 -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 Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Resolution Process' to InformationalRFC 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 Honestly. What part of the sentence "It is not a part of this group's charter to propose solutions to the problems" seems unclear? It appears fairly prominently in http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/problem-charter.html... Spencer ----- Original Message ----- From: "todd glassey" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:57 PM Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Resolution Process' to InformationalRFC > I have a real issue with this language as proposed > herein. The Problem Statement working group was not > interested in "fixing or solving the IETF's problems" > or in actually identifying any problems beyond the > small list that the WG Chairs and the In-crowd of the > group wanted to focus on exclusively. The net of this > is that so many views and concerns were omitted that > the resulting documents can hardly be called a > consensus except between the specific advocates of > those documents. > > This is a demonstration of the critical failing of the > IETF to adequately represent anyone but the "insiders" > in any situation and clearly IMHO demonstrates the lack > of Fair and Open processes. > > Todd Glassey > From problem-statement-bounces@alvestrand.no Fri Jan 16 10:28:24 2004 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA17958 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:28:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287A861BB4; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:27:53 +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 6C17061B90 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:27:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from tsg (64.san-jose-09-10rs.ca.dial-access.att.net[12.72.195.64]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc13) with SMTP id <2004011615274711300n79ine>; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:27:48 +0000 Message-ID: <01b401c3dc44$a0fb3390$010aff0a@tsg> From: "todd glassey" To: "Spencer Dawkins" , References: <023e01c3dbba$edde8890$010aff0a@tsg> <006a01c3dbe2$5408caa0$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:22:20 -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 V6.00.2800.1165 Cc: problem-statement@alvestrand.no Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Resolution Process' to InformationalRFC 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 I'm sorry Spencer - I guess maybe I should ask what part of "refusing to hear anyone else's concerns or allow any reasonable focus on the issues raised by non-insiders" don't you understand? he-he, Sorry - I couldn't resist... Hey - No one said the group was supposed to create solutions or even do in-depth analysis. Its function was to collect and document a set of issues, and (IMHO) the problem it seems was it (the WG chairs) didn't want to listen to anything that anyone but a select few had to say about it... "Lets keep our IETF pure"... rah rah rah - and if this is not true it certainly is what one would think from reading the archive as it sits today, but what the hey - that also is modifiable too right? Standard Disclaimers apply. Todd ----- Original Message ----- From: "Spencer Dawkins" To: "todd glassey" ; Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:39 PM Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Resolution Process' to InformationalRFC > Honestly. > > What part of the sentence "It is not a part of this group's charter to > propose solutions to the > problems" seems unclear? It appears fairly prominently in > http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/problem-charter.html... > > Spencer > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "todd glassey" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 4:57 PM > Subject: Re: Last Call: 'IETF Problem Resolution Process' to > InformationalRFC > > > > I have a real issue with this language as proposed > > herein. The Problem Statement working group was not > > interested in "fixing or solving the IETF's problems" > > or in actually identifying any problems beyond the > > small list that the WG Chairs and the In-crowd of the > > group wanted to focus on exclusively. The net of this > > is that so many views and concerns were omitted that > > the resulting documents can hardly be called a > > consensus except between the specific advocates of > > those documents. > > > > This is a demonstration of the critical failing of the > > IETF to adequately represent anyone but the "insiders" > > in any situation and clearly IMHO demonstrates the lack > > of Fair and Open processes. > > > > Todd Glassey > > >