Subject: Two modest proposals

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:11:50 -0500

As I watch the endless stream of drafts still coming in almost a week past
the submission deadline, I have two modest proposals to make:

1. Move the submission deadline further back (at least a week).  It's
obvious that people are deadline-driven; the drafts will get done no matter
what the deadline is, since people plan their work to meet the deadline.
With the huge number of drafts now showing up just before each meeting,
moving the deadline back gives people more time to read the drafts of
interest in order to be able to discuss them intelligently.

2. Make it easier to get everything.  There are two ways to make this happen:

2a: Once all of the drafts have been processed and announced, tar or zip up
all of the drafts into one big file that can be downloaded in one step
(gzip the tar file, of course).

2b: Produce a CD-ROM that is handed out during registration that contains
all of the current drafts and RFCs.  The ATM Forum now does this very
successfully with incoming contributions to each meeting, and it works
great both for getting everything and having a permanent archival store.  I
would happily pay $10 for such a CD-ROM.

Comments?

Andy

________________________________________________________________________
Andrew G. Malis  [email-masked]  phone:978 952-7414   fax:978 392-2074
Ascend Communications, Inc.        1 Robbins Road     Westford, MA 01886

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:17:13 -0500

I presently maintain a shadow archive of the entire document directory
and IANA data at http://www.amaranthnetworks.com/ and spin one-shot
CDROMs for my own use before and at IETF meetings. I hadn't thought
about spinning more than the copies I need for myself and a few friends,
but if there were interest, I might be willing to look into it.

The layout of the CDROM matches the format on the website. I have a set
of scripts that builds the structure along with the HTML versions of the
indexes and such.

The data could be built into a gzipped TAR file, but would be large
(50MB), making downloading over the Internet somewhat problematic
(unless someone with an OC-3 connect wants to offer it). I can't manage
having a lot of folks pulling a 50MB file from my site at once.

Take a look and let me know what you think.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        [email-masked]
Amaranth Networks Inc.            http://www.amaranthnetworks.com

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:17:13 -0500

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 03:22:30 +0000 (GMT)

> the submission deadline, I have two modest proposals to make:

Excellent suggestions.

I have another modest request:

It's becoming increasingly obvious that IETF-Announce isn't scaling in
my mailbox, thanks to the ever-increasing deluge of internet drafts
before the meet event horizon.

A quick local poll here leads me to suspect that it doesn't in many
others, and that this might put people off receiving draft
notifications. We could all filter, but filtering doesn't scale in
terms of effort.

So: provide additional weekly and monthly digest versions of
[email-masked], along with an IETF-Announce-nodrafts. 
Dividing digests by the eight broad areas of interest would be a
bonus, since not everyone is interested in all areas of activity; just
create separate eight digest lists with From: lines reflecting the
areas, so people can receive what they're interested in.  A simple
cocatenated Title/Author/Date/Abstract/URL format with all that
we-know-this how-to-get info once at the end of the digest message
would be heaven. Detail the digests on area-specific webpages. 

(Such weekly/monthly digest versions would also decrease some of the
noise from rapid revision announcements for typos/blooper corrections
and would be good at helping the interested-but-not-
currently-inactive and the media types keep accurate track of
developments from afar.) 

> 1. Move the submission deadline further back (at least a week). 

Ach, differences in language usage. Here, back is later, forward is
earlier, and you want an earlier deadline to give more time to read
drafts, yes? Don't talk to me about tabling motions, either...

L.

We see into the past but not into the future.
The future must lie behind us.

> It's

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 03:22:30 +0000 (GMT)

Excellent suggestions.

L.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:43:34 -0500

> 1. Move the submission deadline further back (at least a week). 

If we move the submission deadline back any further, even more groups 
would revise their private copies of thedrafts (on their own web pages) 
after the deadline and before the meeting.  This would defeat one of 
the major purposes of publishing the drafts - to allow meeting 
attendees to prepare for the meeting by reading current proposals.

As for CD-ROMs handed out at the meeting, they would be useful, 
but only to people who had laptops with CD-ROM drives,
so we probably shouldn't ask everybody to bear that expense.

And CD-ROMs handed out at the meeting wouldn't help people much 
in reading the documents *before* the meeting (at least not for
folks who attend some meeting in nearly every time slot).  They'd 
have to download many of them before the meeting anyway.  Of course 
it's useful to have the documents online at the meeting, but there's 
no substitute for prior preparation.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:43:34 -0500

Keith

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:01:21 +1000

Here are two completely different modest proposals:

1) make the process smaller (in numbers of participants, scope):

	o invited attendance only.
	o no work, no repeat invite.
	o leave something like IETF to rubber stamp smaller-process outcomes.

2) try to do less in any given window of time

	o its not excessively broken, so trying to fix *everything* all at
	  once is probably stupid.
	o too much change all at once is a really bad idea.
	o some problems go away given enough time.

Leave the mailing lists as they are, and learn to distinguish between worker
bees and drones.

I realize 1) entrenches an oligarchy and is profoundly anti-democratic. I don't
care since it achieves useful outcomes. As soon as it stops acheiving useful
outcomes, some other process will emerge.

From all I hear, IETF hasn't been like it used to be for 5+ years and I suspect
can't get better unless it gets smaller and more elitist.

cheers
	-George (who has never attended an IETF)
--
George Michaelson         |  DSTC Pty Ltd
Email: [email-masked]    |  University of Qld 4072
Phone: +61 7 3365 4310    |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3365 4311    |  http://www.dstc.edu.au

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:01:21 +1000

cheers

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:09:29 -0500

> before the meet event horizon.

I'm actually pretty fond of the current format. It allows me to scan
through the drafts I want to read by subject pretty quickly.

If you are really upset about it, perhaps we could have an
internet-drafts announcement mailing list instead of changing current
practice?

Perry

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:09:29 -0500

Perry

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:02:26 -0500

>         o invited attendance only.

Who gets to decide who is invited?

>         o no work, no repeat invite.

Is this really a problem?  IIRC, Fred Baker did some investigating and 
found that a huge percentage of attendees over the past few years
actually did work, as in co-authoring drafts.  Sure, there are a
few groups with a huge number of hangers-on, but most groups that
I've seen appear to be composed of truly interested parties.

>         o leave something like IETF to rubber stamp smaller-process outcomes.

This leads to groups trying to develop "solutions" without a clue
as to the context in which they will be used.  A fundamental 
strength of IETF is that its structure allows/encourages participation
across areas - people don't have to confine their participation
to a single group or topic area.  (And the biggest problems that
I see in IETF seem to result from the increasing tendency for people
to participate in only one area or group and isolate themselves from 
the rest.)

>         o its not excessively broken, so trying to fix *everything* all at

Depends on what you mean by "its"

>         o some problems go away given enough time.

True.  But just because the problem goes away doesn't mean you like
the result.  It may mean that you've lost the opportunity to solve
the problem and you're stuck with the disaster that follows.

(fragmentation of the net due to NATs, which is itself partially
due to address space scarcity, being a convenient example)

> I realize 1) entrenches an oligarchy and is profoundly anti-democratic. 
> I don't care since it achieves useful outcomes. As soon as it stops 
> acheiving useful outcomes, some other process will emerge.

People who want to set up closed, narrowly-focused, standards groups 
are free to do so, outside of IETF.  In fact, it happens all the time, 
with apparent ease, so it's not clear why IETF should get in that game. 
And yet IETF continues to exist.  I conclude that there must be some 
purpose that IETF is serving that isn't served by these closed groups.

The IETF name has always stood for community consensus.  It's certainly 
the case that there are other ways to produce "useful outcomes" than the 
consensus process, and sometimes these are more expedient that IETF.  
But I don't like the idea of someone appropriating the IETF name and 
using it to describe a closed process.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:02:26 -0500

Keith

---

From: Antony Bowesman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:36:44 +0900

> to participate in only one area or group and isolate themselves from

Why is that a problem?  There are only so many drafts one can read,
absorb, understand and comment sensibly on.  Well over 100 drafts have
been sent out in the last two days and there are over 100 IETF WGs.  I
would see a bigger problem if people tried to become Jacks of all trades
and masters of none.  You end up with the same situation you are trying
to avoid, i.e. people developing solutions with no clue as to the
context.  Of course a reasonable level of understanding of the big
picture is essential but there has to be a practical limit.

Rgds
-- 
Antony Bowesman
[email-masked]

---

From: Antony Bowesman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:36:44 +0900

Rgds
-- 
Antony Bowesman
[email-masked]

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 03:05:08 -0500

> Why is that a problem?  

It's a problem because groups are developing solutions for 'pieces'
of a larger problem which don't always fit together.  The designers
of one technology (or layer of a protocol stack) are the users of 
another.  If the layers don't fit properly, it's a mess.

(here I started to list several examples, but to do so I would have 
to point fingers.  anyway, it is not as if specific groups are to blame...
it's just another consequence of the scaling problems we're having.
we're living the tower of babel scenario.)

> There are only so many drafts one can read,
> been sent out in the last two days and there are over 100 IETF WGs.  

That's not so many drafts per group, but the sheer number of groups 
is part of the problem.  

> I would see a bigger problem if people tried to become Jacks of all trades
> and masters of none.  

Agreed, that's also a danger.  Fortunately, most people don't try to 
do that.  And it is useful to have a few people with a broad view.

> You end up with the same situation you are trying

absolutely.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 03:05:08 -0500

absolutely.

Keith

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:50:39 +0100

>>interest in order to be able to discuss them intelligently.

i agree....

 
 >>would happily pay $10 for such a CD-ROM.

i find mget in ftp works quite well, but it might be neat if the
drafts were in one directory on i-d servers.....and ditto on web
servers so it could be indexed by ietf meeting number

 >>Comments?
 
keep the announcements - i have now mail filters that make them easy
to handle; not sure about value of CD before meeting.

 cheers

   jon

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:50:39 +0100

i agree....

 

 

 cheers

   jon

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:07:47 -0600

My opinion differs.  Assuming all the drafts will be announced by
this weekend, I think everything's fine the way it is.  I can delete
draft announcements I'm not interested in at a rate of 5-10 per
minute, and fetch drafts I do want at the rate of 2-3 per minute.
Those who want the announcements batched could cause that effect for
themselves with appropriate mail filtering, or band together and
provide themselves that service.
______________________________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford                    [email-masked]                     Fermilab
"A5.1.5.2.7.1. Remove all classified and CCI boards from the COMSEC equipment,
thoroughly smash them with a hammer or an ax, and scatter the pieces."

---

From: "Matt Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:07:47 -0600

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:04:59 +0000 (GMT)

> internet-drafts announcement mailing list instead of changing current

Separating reviewed/standards stuff from draft submissions like this
strikes me as useful. 

L.

the IETF: the 'community' that requires filters to enable you to
participate in it effectively. procmail, here I come.

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 17:04:59 +0000 (GMT)

L.

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:04:56 -0800

As someone who has been in the IETF for a long time and has started working
last year with the ITU and ETSI, the reason for all the drafts is quite
clear. The worlds of Datacom and Telecom are converging. This is bringing
about two things. 

1. New proposals for protocols and architectures which deal with this
convergence.

2. Input from a new community. (Telecom)

Without actually checking, I would suppose that if you removed all the
drafts from traditional telecom companies like Nortel, Lucent, Ericsson,
etc., the load of drafts would be a great deal lighter. But these companies
have dramatically increased their involvement with datacom and the Internet
this year and I expect the input will increase as we go forward.

I attended a recent ETSI meeting which had over 300 contributions for a
single technical committee! Many working parties in the ITU have similar
loads. Large telecom vendors have representatively large teams of standards
professionals that attend these meetings. It will be interesting to see how
many folks from the big telecom companies show up in Orlando. I would guess
a very large number.

I guess this is part of the Internet and the IETF growing up. It's in
interesting societal topic, but the fact remains that those who wish to
cover standards truly have their work cut out for them.

---

From: Matt Holdrege <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:04:56 -0800

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 15:35:55 +0100

>provide themselves that service.

actually this worked fairly well for ietf+censored.
Anyone who has a spare Majordomo could set up an ietf-announce+nodrafts;
the only thing you need is a list with

taboo_headers <<  END
/^Subject: I-D ACTION:/
END

in its config file.

                          Harald

-- 
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 15:35:55 +0100

taboo_headers <<  END
/^Subject: I-D ACTION:/
END

in its config file.

                          Harald

---

From: Martin Hamilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 17:15:27 +0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

"Andrew G. Malis" writes:

| As I watch the endless stream of drafts still coming in almost a week past
| the submission deadline, I have two modest proposals to make:

In addition to the announce-digest and announce-nodrafts ideas, it
might help if the actual announcement postings were batched into
small-ish chunks posted over time.

The temptation to hit the D key (or the 'catch up on folder' key, in
my case :-) is much stronger if you get a huge wodge of stuff
delivered in a relatively short space of time.

This defeats (or at least dents) the principle of providing everyone
with the up to date drafts before the face-to-face meeting, of course.

Ciao!

Martin

---

From: Martin Hamilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 17:15:27 +0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Ciao!

Martin

---

From: [email-masked] (Uber, Chet)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:45:54 -0600

If this "supposed deluge" of drafts and announcements represented even a
dent in my email I might be concerned. I think that the system is fine
the
way it is, and have not heard a compelling argument to change this
system. I
deal quite effectively with my IETF/IESG mail flow (and all the rest)
with
mail filtering.

As to the statement that the IETF-Announce does not scale well to your
mail
box; I would say if you have appropriate mail filtering or other
applicable
technologies, and still find that it doesn't scale -- get a new mail
client.

Also in counting the messages about this subject, it far outweighs the
ID traffic for the same period.

Regards,
Chet

============================================================
Chet Uber, Chief Technology Officer
World Media Company, a World-Herald Company
http://www.omaha.com [email-masked]
vox 402.444.1158   fax 402.346.7158   pgr 402-899-1854
------------------------------------------------------------
"My life is an MPEG, and I am not the producer.
============================================================

---

From: [email-masked] (Uber, Chet)
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 13:45:54 -0600

Regards,
Chet