Subject: Re: Tighter admission policy for I-Ds (was: blank!)

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 08:52:30 -0400 (EDT)

some people in this discussion seem to think that most (or some) ADs
would have the time to review (however quickly) IDs to see if they
should be published - speaking for myself, don't bet on it

in addition I think it would be a real shame to change the direction
of the IETF that much - we have benefited  greatly from IDs that
have come out of left field (not all of them but some of them)
and it does not seem in the IETF's general interest (which is producing
the best technology) to block or inhibit a source of input to our process.

Scott

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:44:32 -0700

>the best technology) to block or inhibit a source of input to our process.

To underscore this view:

I request that there be a clear statement of the problem being attacked and 
that we get a degree of consensus that it needs attacking, before we try to 
propose solutions.

This topic is easily able to have the classic baby-elimination unintended 
side effect, while ridding us of the bath water.

At 07:33 AM 8/21/99 , Vernon Schryver wrote:
>Gresham's Law says essentially that if you don't block or inhibit some
>sources of input, the bad input will make the good extinct.

Let's not fall in love with the application of that Law, too much, absent 
empirical evidence that IETF mailing list participation demonstrates 
properties similar to coin distribution.  Human behavior has a tendency of 
being rather more complication, especially in groups.

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:44:32 -0700

To underscore this view:

d/

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 20:49:31 -0500

At 11:44 AM 8/21/1999 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>I request that there be a clear statement of the problem being attacked 
>and that we get a degree of consensus that it needs attacking, before we 
>try to propose solutions.
>

I for one totally support Scott's position on this issue. Is there a 
problem here ...I don't see a problem. I totally reject Vernon's thesis. If 
it not broke ...why fix it?  The beauty of the IETF process is that we all 
accept a considerable level of "noise" in exchange for a totally open 
process.  It may be an annoyance ..but thats OK.  I'm more than willing to 
delete 50 bogus ID's in the hope of finding one gem of an idea.

I am not competent to comment on the draft-zigmond-tv-url document .. but 
it was amusing to read. I'm not sure how it might impact my work..but you 
never know. I want to preserve the opportunity to see such work. I have 
issued unsolicited and unapproved ID's myself on topics that eventually 
became BOF's. It this avenue now to be closed because I cant find a AD to 
sign off on a draft?

The IESG, WG chairs and the AD's have enough to do [this is a volunteer 
organization after all] ..now we burden them with being the gatekeepers for 
off the wall ideas?? No way thank you. This is not the ITU... though I'm 
told the ITU is a much more open standards body these days.....in large 
part due the IETF model.

I will oppose any modification of current ID practice without clear and 
compelling arguments to the contary.

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
eFAX Fax to EMail 815.333.1237 (Preferred for Fax)
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : [email-masked]
GSTN Fax 314.918.9015
MediaGate iPost VoiceMail and Fax 800.260.4464
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

---

From: Richard Shockey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 20:49:31 -0500

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 21:58:13 -0400

> should be published - speaking for myself, don't bet on it

the best thing I can say about the suggestion that ADs should review 
IDs before publication, is that it is is hopelessly naive ... 
and not only because of scaling concerns about IESG workload.

Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 21:58:13 -0400

Keith