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

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:58:26 -0600 (MDT)

> From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>

> >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.
>
> 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. 
> ...

When I listed the area directors, IESG, and IAB, I meant that they should
individually be able to direct that a draft be published.  Don't you think
you could have found an IAB, AD, or ISEG sponsor?  If you could not have
found a sponsor in a WG chair or the IESG, AD's, or IAB, do you really
think your drafts should havae been published?

(From a quick skim of RFC 1339, and without intending any insult, I
don't think it should have been published, at least not before some
significant implementation experience.  It's not an entirely bad idea,
but not all good ideas should be published as RFC's, I don't know what
I think of RFC 1895.)

> 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.

How do you suggest that "vigilance" be implemented?  The intent of my
proposal is to 
There have already been complaints from the advocates of the currently
controversial I-D that it has ben subject to too much vigilance.

> 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.

If this were the first time this issue has been raised, the first attempt
by an industry group to ram through bad ideas that have been rejected by
the IETF (that's how I (mis?)read the historical discussion about the new
I-D), or even the only example of an I-D that should not have been
published in the last 6 months and will never have a second revision, you
would have a good point.  Instead, if you look at current I-D's, you'll
see that the IETF is trying very hard to prove Gresham's Law applies to
network standards as well as coinage.

(Gresham's Law says that bad coins drives good coins out fo the market.)

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 15:30:06 -0500

On 8/20/99 at 1:58 PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:

>When I listed the area directors, IESG, and IAB, I meant that they 
>should individually be able to direct that a draft be published. 
>Don't you think you could have found an IAB, AD, or ISEG sponsor?

Ah, I misunderstood then. Yes, I *did* find an IESG sponsor for each 
of them, and that seems like a fine bar to raise. However, I'm 
assuming you mean is a quick "this isn't utter junk" review by 
someone in the IETF (IESG, IAB, etc.). Anything more than that should 
only be part of the RFC publication review.

>significant implementation experience.  It's not an entirely bad 
>idea, but not all good ideas should be published as RFC's...

No insult taken. It was an experiment, there was some implementation 
experience, and it turned out that the experiment (for assorted 
reasons) failed. I think that was reasonably published as 
Experimental.

>I don't know what I think of RFC 1895.)

1896, which is the MIME text/enriched Content-Type.

>How do you suggest that "vigilance" be implemented?  The intent of 
>my proposal is to

I think you trimmed something accidentally here.

>There have already been complaints from the advocates of the 
>currently controversial I-D that it has ben subject to too much 
>vigilance.

And they would be wrong. This is exactly how I suppose that the vigilance go.

>...if you look at current I-D's, you'll see that the IETF is trying 
>very hard to prove Gresham's Law applies to network standards as 
>well as coinage.

I'm not convinced. Certainly the number of I-D's doesn't impact WG's 
abilities to get work done. It may negatively impact the ability to 
get good individual submissions through, but with enough of the sort 
of vigilance we've seen on this one, it will only be an issue of it 
taking longer to get those out as against not getting them done at 
all.

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 15:30:06 -0500

pr

---

From: "Michael A. Dolan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 14:21:53 -0700

At 01:58 PM 8/20/99 -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
>
>...If this were the first time this issue has been raised, the first 

attempt
>I-D)...

If you are referring to the pointers LarryM provided, you have indeed 
mis-read the references to past discussions.  And, these references 
were not even to IETF mail lists - they were a combination of recent 
public (on a W3C interest group), and private email mostly between 
LarryM and myself in both cases trying to wrestle with some related 
issues about tv:.

Or are you referring to your and others comments to the first version 
of this I-D, published to IETF in June 1997 (over 2 years ago).  If 
so, please provide me an archive pointer.  I would very much like to 
review all those comments that were made.

I am sorry that you and apparently others on this list feel that the 
tv: I-D is being ram-rodded by an industry group against all sane 
technical input and former technical review and rejection.  This is 
simply not true.  We are only trying to get something we feel is 
valuable and now in current practice (for better or worse) published 
for the benefit of others that may wish to use it (and there are 
others, some of whom don't know it yet).  And, to ensure convergence 
for the near term in its limited use.

IETF used to be the place to do this.

And yes.  The industry has indeed moved on since teh June 1997 
publication with the use of tv:, as it has with SAP and [fill in your 
favorite old I-D here].

Lack of ongoing activity on IETF does not seem like a reason to 
reject an informational RFC.  That lack of activity could very well 
only mean a lack of interest by the group on the topic (which I would 
argue is the case with tv:).

	Mike

------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Dolan, Representing DIRECTV,  (619)445-9070   
PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903        FAX: (619)445-6122

---

From: "Michael A. Dolan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 14:21:53 -0700

attempt

	Mike

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 00:11:45 +0100 (BST)

> review all those comments that were made.

Wow.

I-Ds are published?
The draft has had broken BNF for over two years?

In any case, as stated previously, start at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ietf/

(Of course, if you were subscribed to the list back then, you'd have
 seen any comments at the time.)

> We are only trying to get something we feel is valuable and now in
> current practice (for better or worse) published 

don't you mean documented?

> for the benefit of
> others that may wish to use it (and there are others, some of whom
> don't know it yet).
[..]
> publication with the use of tv:

hopefully the draft has too in its revisions.

There's nothing stopping you getting an updated draft addressing
expressed concerns while documenting current practice in.

L.

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

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 00:11:45 +0100 (BST)

Wow.

I-Ds are published?

[..]

L.