Subject: Re: draft-zigmond-tv-url-02

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 07:24:12 -0600 (MDT)

By my count, this is the fourth essentially identical message from these
guys.  It is not polite to simply ignore them or the many other
"utilizations" of the I-D and Informational RFC process in recent years.

The right response is for the IETF to finally respond to the changed world,
admit that being a publisher without an editor for all comers is unwise,
and change the rules slightly.  Henceforth, the IESG should publish no
Internet Drafts except those that are products of IETF working groups or
the IAB, and implement that exit from the usenet-like publishing world by
requiring a go-ahead from a working group chair, area director, IESG
member, IAB member before publishing any draft.

Note that this would also meet some of the objections to non-IETF as
well as IETF approved archives of expired I-D's.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

> From: "Jack Lang" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>

> IETF members,
>
> ntl: supports the conventions documented in draft-zigmond-tv-url-02,
> and supports the release of this document as an Informational RFC.
>
> Jack Lang
> Chief Technologist
> ntl: Interactive
> 90 Longacre
> London WC2E 9RA
>
>

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:52:36 -0400

Vernon Schryver wrote:

> Henceforth, the IESG should publish no

OK, I'll ask the obvious question (that I'm sure you've thought about):
wouldn't that make it harder to get minority opinions considered?

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
[email-masked]|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 10:52:36 -0400

---

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:51:36 -0400

>At 8/20/99:09:24 AM, Vernon Schryver wrote:

Hi Vernon,

 >Henceforth, the IESG should publish no Internet Drafts except those that
 >are products of IETF working groups or the IAB, and implement that exit
 >from the usenet-like publishing world by requiring a go-ahead from a
 >working group chair, area director, IESG member, IAB member before
 >publishing any draft.

I generally like that idea (and I presume you mean it to apply also to
any short-cuts to unsponsored Info RFCs)...as long as the introduction
of new ideas/proposals via BOFs and other mechanisms (e.g., publication
of articles in academic, industry, trade journals, and technical confs)
is maintained and perhaps even strengthened (i.e., with publicity for
the procedures, resources for meeting support, maybe even a quasi-
permanent WG dedicated to "new ideas incubation" or something, etc.).

We have seen some helpful actions taken re the signal/noise ratio
problem on some IETF e-mail lists in recent months...perhaps we now
need to deal with the (large, and growing) quality/quantity ratio 
problem of "IETF" documents.  And where *relevance to probable
IETF standards development* is a primary quality metric, I think
Vernon's suggestion will help.

Cordially,

BobN
------------ ISO 9001 Registered Quality Supplier -----------
Bob Natale         | ACE*COMM              | 301-721-3000 [v]
Dir, Net Mgmt Prod | 704 Quince Orchard Rd | 301-721-3001 [f]
[email-masked]| Gaithersburg MD 20878 | www.acecomm.com
------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com -------------

---

From: Bob Natale <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 11:51:36 -0400

Hi Vernon,

Cordially,

BobN
------------- Free downloads at www.winsnmp.com -------------

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:21:38 +0100 (BST)

> wouldn't that make it harder to get minority opinions considered?

adoption of individual drafts by working groups is a valuable, if
rare, occurrence.

L.

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

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 17:21:38 +0100 (BST)

L.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:30:45 -0500

>member, IAB member before publishing any draft.

Even given the absurdity of the 4 so-called "in support" messages, I 
find this position completely without merit and strongly disagree 
with its implementation. I have my name on two RFCs that did not go 
through a working group: RFC 1339, which was published as 
experimental but went nowhere, and RFC 1896, which was published as 
informational; widely deployed, and turned out to be quite useful. 
The last call on each of these documents was extended, produced good 
feedback, and eventually produced IMHO reasonable documents which 
were of use to the community. I find it completely absurd to think 
that these documents would have required WG sponsorship (neither had 
anything to do with the work of any active WGs) in order to get 
community review.

We should continue to be vigilant in reviewing I-D's that don't come 
out of WGs; that's why we have extended last calls and IESG reviews 
before they become RFCs.

You, like the folks you are complaining about, have given no 
justification whatsoever for your stated position. The particular I-D 
in question is getting community review (as it should); I see nothing 
in your proposal that would make this particular situation any 
better, and plenty that would make the future worse.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <mailto:[email-masked]>
Eudora Engineering - QUALCOMM Incorporated
Ph: (217)337-6377 or (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:30:45 -0500

pr