Subject: Re: text suggested by ADs

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 06:59:50 -0700

Keith,

> > The case John outlines is the one I am concerned about as well.
> > [...]
> > And, FWIW, when the AD suggests specific text changes, it's often 
> > enough the desire of that AD rather than based on feedback from some 
> > other WG.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with that.  It's the ADs' job to push back 
> on documents with technical flaws.  They're supposed to use their 
> judgments as technical experts, not just be conduits of information 
> supplied by others.
> 
> >> I think the ADs should continue to be able to raise such issues, but 
> >> I also think it might be helpful to have better way of resolving such 
> >> disputes than either "let the AD win" or "let's sit on this until the 
> >> IESG holds its nose and passes it".
> >
> > Sure - and sometimes other ADs get involved, and it boils down to 
> > "what can you add/change to appease the other AD" rather than "what is 
> > sensible to add".
> 
> It's as likely to boil down to "how do we get this WG to realize that 
> there really is a serious technical problem with what they've created?" 

How about requiring to produce working code (and perhaps operational
experience) ?

Yakov.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 10:36:16 -0400

> How about requiring to produce working code (and perhaps operational

working code is valuable in some cases - especially where it appears that
the protocol is not easily implemented.  but working code won't provide 
an indication of how well the protocol works in large deployments in the
wild.  for that, analysis and/or modeling are the best tools we have.

Keith

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 10:44:13 -0700

Keith,

> wild.  for that, analysis and/or modeling are the best tools we have.

How many of such analysis and/or modeling has been produced by the IESG ?

Yakov.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 14:38:49 -0400

> How many of such analysis and/or modeling has been produced by the IESG ?

I don't know, and neither do you.

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 11:54:16 -0700

Keith,

> > I disagree that the ADs are necessarily that much more technically 
> > astute than the rest of us.
> 
> 1. ADs usually _are_ more technically astute than the average IETF 
> participant (perhaps not you, but the average participant), because ADs 
> are selected for their expertise while IETF participants are 
> self-selecting.  (Maybe some are selected by their employers, but I 
> don't think it's generally the practice of most employers to send their 
> best technical people to standards committees. My impression is that 
> many employers - not all by any means - would rather send people who 
> are expendable, and/or who will represent the company's official 
> position rather than their own best judgment.)

At the same time for each AD there is more than one person in the
IETF who is more technically astute than that AD. So, why should
the IETF decision process favor opinion of such AD more than the opinion
of these other individual who are more astute that the AD ?

> 2. ADs also tend to have a broader perspective than the average IETF 
> participant, because ADs are exposed to everything that IETF does while 
> most participants' activity is confined to a narrow topic area.  That's 
> not to say that a broad perspective is inherently less valuable than a 
> narrow perspective - they're both valuable, but for different reasons.

Suffice to say that ADs do *not* have the monopoly on the broader perspective. 

Yakov.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 16:00:05 -0400

> IETF who is more technically astute than that AD.

perhaps.  however, it's hard to identify those people, and they may not
have either the time/energy or neutrality that are required to do final
review.  if they do, they're free to put their names in the hat for the
next NOMCOM.

Keith

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 18:26:13 -0400

On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 09:35, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more technically
> astute than *all* the rest of us.  That is, we need to be careful that
> technical input from ADs isn't automatically assigned extra weight or
> control (veto power).

Indeed.  There will be very technically astute people involved in the
IETF who don't want to serve as AD for any number of reasons (have other
life-consuming things to do; don't want to deal with the "politics",
etc.).

And I haven't seen sufficient attention paid in this thread to the
difference between breadth vs. depth in both knowledge and skill.

I would expect that the folks writing the specs would have the most
depth with respect to their particular technology while AD's and other
generalist reviewers would likely have more breadth and better insight
about the interaction between that technology and the rest of the
universe.

						- Bill

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 18:45:03 -0400

--On Monday, 02 May, 2005 18:26 -0400 Bill Sommerfeld
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Let me restate for clarity - ADs aren't necessarily more
>> technically astute than *all* the rest of us.  That is, we
>> need to be careful that technical input from ADs isn't
>> automatically assigned extra weight or control (veto power).
> 
> Indeed.  There will be very technically astute people involved
> in the IETF who don't want to serve as AD for any number of
> reasons (have other life-consuming things to do; don't want to
> deal with the "politics", etc.).

And some of us who periodically delude ourselves that we are
technically astute in at least a few areas have put in our time
as ADs and feel as if we have paid our dues and it is someone
else's turn.   I certainly fall into that category.  I can't
speak for Keith, Dave Crocker, and other former ADs who have
spoken up in this discussion, but I suspect...

So I want to pose a different, but related, pair of questions to
Bill, Ralph, and others:

(1) What would it take to convince you that putting in a term or
two as AD --not a life sentence, but a term or two-- was an
obligation you, as long-term participants and contributors, owed
the community?

(2) How, if at all, would the AD job have to change in order to
make volunteering on that basis plausible for you?   Please
don't just answer "lower workload": if that is all or part of
the answer, what would you get rid of and what would you do with
it?

     john

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 20:22:29 -0400

On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 12:19 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Let me also restate for clarity:
> 
> There's no way to avoid that happening and still have quality control.

Why is that?  If an AD has a compelling reason that a specification
needs work, the AD should be able to make a convincing argument to the
IETF as a whole.  Best way to do that is in an open conversation during
the IETF last call.

> > Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open mailing lists
> > during last calls, to make sure their technical input is on the same
> > footing as everyone else's technical input.  I agree that the IESG's job
> > is to ensure correctness, completeness, etc.  That feedback should be
> > provided earlier, in an open forum.
> 
> I agree that input should be provided as early as possible.  But some 
> kinds of feedback inherently follow Last Call,

Such as?

>  and limiting IESG input
> to before Last Call would just serve to make the process even slower
> than it already is (by requiring multiple IESG reviews rather than just
> one),

I disagree - suppose the gating function comes *before* the IETF last
call: before a draft goes to IETF last call, the ADs all agree that they
are prepared (have cycles, aren't travelling, etc.) to review and
comment on the draft.

My experience has been that the there can be an unbounded delay between
the IETF last call and the IESG review.

>  while lowering publicatiortp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12)
	by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 May 2005 00:42:38 -0400
From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
To: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 20:22:29 -0400
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: text suggested by ADs
Sender: [email-masked]

On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 12:19 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> Let me also restate for clarity:
> 
> There's no way to avoid that happening and still have quality control.

Why is that?  If an AD has a compelling reason that a specification
needs work, the AD should be able to make a convincing argument to the
IETF as a whole.  Best way to do that is in an open conversation during
the IETF last call.

> > Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open mailing lists
> > during last calls, to make sure their technical input is on the same
> > footing as everyone else's technical input.  I agree that the IESG's job
> > is to ensure correctness, completeness, etc.  That feedback should be
> > provided earlier, in an open forum.
> 
> I agree that input should be provided as early as possible.  But some 
> kinds of feedback inherently follow Last Call,

Such as?

>  and limiting IESG input
> to before Last Call would just serve to make the process even slower
> than it already is (by requiring multiple IESG reviews rather than just
> one),

I disagree - suppose the gating function comes *before* the IETF last
call: before a draft goes to IETF last call, the ADs all agree that they
are prepared (have cycles, aren't travelling, etc.) to review and
comment on the draft.

My experience has been that the there can be an unbounded delay between
the IETF last call and the IESG review.

>  while lowering publication quality (by preventing IESG from 
> objecting to valid technical issues noticed after Last Call, and perhaps
> discovered while considering Last Call input, but not directly related 
> to issues raised in Last Call).
>  
> Keith

n quality (by preventing IESG from 
> objecting to valid technical issues noticed after Last Call, and perhaps
> discovered while considering Last Call input, but not directly related 
> to issues raised in Last Call).
>  
> Keith

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 10:29:25 -0400

> IETF as a whole.

Not necessarily, because many compelling reasons will not be  
understood by the IETF as a whole.  Look how long it took for the  
community to start understanding the problems associated with scoped  
addressing.

> Best way to do that is in an open conversation during the IETF last  
> call.

The best time to give a working group feedback is as early as  
possible, and long before the IETF last call.  Providing an extra  
stage of review during Last Call would provide marginal, perhaps even  
negative, return for the additional effort invested.  If we're going  
to invest effort in extra stages of review, we'd get more benefit by  
doing that review much earlier in a document's life cycle.

>>> Which is why I suggest ADs provide technical input in open  
>>> mailing lists during last calls, to make sure their technical  
>>> input is on the same footing as everyone else's technical input.   
>>> I agree that the IESG's job is to ensure correctness,  
>>> completeness, etc.  That feedback should be provided earlier, in  
>>> an open forum.
>>
>> I agree that input should be provided as early as possible.  But  
>> some  kinds of feedback inherently follow Last Call,
>
> Such as?

Somebody has to evaluate Last Call comments, and make a determination  
as to whether the Last Call comment is correct, or the WG text is  
correct, or (as is often the case) whether there is some merit in the  
Last Call comment but it is overreaching in some way.  It's also  
possible for multiple Last Call comments to conflict, or for a Last  
Call comment to reveal new issues about a document that weren't the  
subject of the Last Call comment.

What you seem to be asking for is for the final review to be done  
twice - one in which the IESG reviews a document during Last Call,  
and another in which the IESG reviews a document after Last Call  
comments have been received.  This would substantially increase  
IESG's workload.

Something that needs to be understood is that most people who read as  
many documents as the IESG does will not retain many details of those  
documents in memory.  So they'll need to reread the documents (or at  
least the relevant portions) to evaluate Last Call comments.  And yet  
when rereading the document the text will look familiar and it's even  
harder to notice details.  For this reason a thorough rereading of a  
document can be even more tedious than reading it the first time.

>> and limiting IESG input to before Last Call would just serve to  
>> make the process even slower than it already is (by requiring  
>> multiple IESG reviews rather than just one),
>
> I disagree - suppose the gating function comes *before* the IETF  
> last call: before a draft goes to IETF last call, the ADs all agree  
> that they are prepared (have cycles, aren't travelling, etc.) to  
> review and comment on the draft.
>
> My experience has been that the there can be an unbounded delay  
> between the IETF last call and the IESG review.

Your proposal would move the unbounded delay to _before_ IETF Last  
Call.  As it is now, if a WG gets feedback during Last Call that  
there's something wrong with its work, it can suggest fixes for the  
problems (or otherwise respond to the comments) before IESG reviews  
the document, thus increasing the potential for the document to be  
approved (pending changes) by IESG on the first review.

The other problem with the proposal - the other reason it would  
increase IESG workload for marginal benefit - has to do with the  
changes that it would imply for the way IESG operates.  At least when  
I was on IESG, the IESG as a whole would not evaluate a document  
until the responsible AD had reviewed it and was willing to vote Yes  
on the document.   This saved the IESG the effort of having to review  
documents that were clearly not ready.  Your proposal would take away  
this optimization.

(OTOH, that procedure had its own problems - in particular it put the  
responsible AD in a bind if he or she found problems with a  
document.  Pushing the document back to the WG required an extra  
revision/review cycle and delayed progress of the document for  
several weeks.  At the same time, since this pushback came from a  
single AD, the WG could accuse the AD of capriciousness.   So  
responsible ADs would either be tempted to solve the problems  
themselves by suggesting changes in text to the WG (to which their  
response might be to balk), or to state a Yes position on the  
document but somehow get another AD to state a Discuss position in  
order to get the responsible AD's comments addressed.  I really hope  
that this has changed since I was on IESG, so that an AD can say to  
the rest of IESG "this document needs changes, but it's good enough  
that the rest of IESG can review it now".)

Keith

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 17:05:21 +0200

I see that many points made _may_ lead to personal controversy (not the 
target). I hate rigidity and procedures but I love method. We may like it 
or not, but IETF is only subject to good practices as a guidance to 
imperfect members trying their best. Rules will not change that.

But we might accept some IETFiquette permitting to achieve more. I have 
always been impressed by RFC 1958 which actually defines the architecture 
of the Internet without any rule. I think it misses a model, the same as I 
think sometimes IETF misses method; but it seems to work.

I would suggest that instead of commenting at length on each others 
comments, those who have a suggestion makes it a short sentence and we make 
a list of it. Not as a rule, but as guidance. After a while, the ones which 
work would de facto become part of the Thao of the IETF.

I would suggest one:

"When a Charter is assigned or updated, the WG should review it until the 
AD are satisfied it has been understood, and the WG is satisfied the AD and 
the IESG have understood the enhancements proposed by the WG from its own 
members experience."

As discussed here AD and IESG may know better than the WG in some cases, or 
less in other cases. It is important that in both cases they first 
understand each other over the expected deliverables, rather than dispute 
at the end. IETFiquette should prevent any WG work before there is a 
consensus that such a common understanding has been reached. A Charter 
should not be "not up for debate" until the Chair and a part of the WH has 
complete their work on a predetermined proposition.

jfc

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 11:40:53 -0400

>  I hate rigidity and procedures but I love method.

That's a very useful distinction.  There are lots of practices which  
we would do well to recommend, but which we should not require.

Keith

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 08:48:50 -0400

John - editing to get directly to your questions:

> obligation you, as long-term participants and contributors, owed

I do see a term or two as AD as an obligation - that I haven't chosen to
fulfill.  I have seriously considered allowing the nomcom to add my name
to the list of candidates for AD a couple of times (and may have left
may name on the list once, but I can't recall with certainty), but have
always decided against it in the end.  I have the delusion that I would
be able to make a positive contribution.  However, from what I've been
able to learn about the commitment to the job, I have not been willing
to make the professional and personal tradeoffs (even sacrifices)
required to fulfill the responsibilities. 

And, I already seem to have a life sentence as chair of the dhc WG...

> the answer, what would you get rid of and what would you do with

I don't know of specific ways to change the job enough to make it
plausible.  More important would be to find myself in a professional and
personal situation where I, my family and my employer would be willing
to commit the necessary time (15-25 hrs/wk? and IETF weeks) and travel
to fulfill the commitments.

- Ralph

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 11:07:55 -0400

Ralph,

An interesting, obviously reasonable, and not-unexpected 
perspective.  But the question wasn't addressed just to you -- I 
think it would be useful to hear from others, especially those 
who have put in a few terms as WG chairs or doc editors, on 
this.   What I've heard, very indirectly, from some nomcoms is 
that they sometimes return incumbents, in spite of seeing a need 
for turnover, because they have had no plausible alternatives. 
To the extent to which that is a real issue, I think it means 
two things to the community:

(i) We need to understand the issue and, as appropriate, change 
things around until there are alternatives.  That might involve 
workload/ work description changes, training alternatives and 
more "leadership development", or other factors, but it seems to 
me that the question is becoming critical-path.

(ii) We need to ask ourselves, carefully and sincerely, somne 
questions about areas and IETF capabilities.  In particular, 
suppose we have an area that has so little leadership depth that 
the nomcom does not have reasonable choices of AD candidates. 
Is it time to declare that the IETF lacks the resources to 
pursue the work of that area in an effective way and then shut 
it down?  That is not a propoosal, just a question that, I 
believe, deserves serious thought.

     john

--On Thursday, May 05, 2005 08:48 -0400 Ralph Droms 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> (1) What would it take to convince you that putting in a term
>> or two as AD --not a life sentence, but a term or two-- was an
>> obligation you, as long-term participants and contributors,
>> owed the community?
>
> I do see a term or two as AD as an obligation - that I haven't
> chosen to fulfill.  I have seriously considered allowing the
> nomcom to add my name to the list of candidates for AD a
> couple of times (and may have left may name on the list once,
> but I can't recall with certainty), but have always decided
> against it in the end.  I have the delusion that I would be
> able to make a positive contribution.  However, from what I've
> been able to learn about the commitment to the job, I have not
> been willing to make the professional and personal tradeoffs
> (even sacrifices) required to fulfill the responsibilities.
>
>> (2) How, if at all, would the AD job have to change in order
>> to make volunteering on that basis plausible for you?   Please
>> the answer, what would you get rid of and what would you do
>> with it?
>
> I don't know of specific ways to change the job enough to make
> it plausible.  More important would be to find myself in a
> professional and personal situation where I, my family and my
> employer would be willing to commit the necessary time (15-25
> hrs/wk? and IETF weeks) and travel to fulfill the commitments.
>
> - Ralph
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 08:40:59 -0700

Folks,

>  To the extent to which that is a real issue, ...
>
>  (i) We need to understand the issue and, as appropriate, change things
>  around until there are alternatives...
>
>  (ii) We need to ask ourselves, carefully and sincerely, somne questions
>  about areas and IETF capabilities...

In spite of my already posting to the list too often, I think it worth posting 
on this John's note to suggest, strongly, that folks consider hos comments by  
very carefully.  

They really do go to the core.

  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 09:12:07 -0700

Keith Moore wrote:
> perhaps.  however, it's hard to identify those people,

They're the ones disagreeing with the ADs in some cases ;-)

> and they may not
> review.

Neutrality is a two-way street; it is required for ADs too, and they,
just like individuals, have had (and continue to have) their pet
perspectives.

>  if they do, they're free to put their names in the hat for the
> next NOMCOM.

So the message is "get your employer to ante 80% of your time to the
IETF, or keep your expertise to yourself"?

NOMCOM descisions are not a lottery where you win the right to have your
input count more.

Joe

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:48:35 -0400

> They're the ones disagreeing with the ADs in some cases ;-)

The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically astute people
and egocentric fools.  Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing 
opinions as who which people are in which category.

> just like individuals, have had (and continue to have) their pet

There's more than one kind of neutrality.  The kind of neutrality I was
talking about was one that would not inherently favor one vendor's approach
over another, or would not favor one of multiple equally-valid approaches over
another.  However, there's nothing whatsoever wrong with an AD having a
technical opinion that one approach is more valid than another.  That's their
job.

> IETF, or keep your expertise to yourself"?

Nope.  The message is that if you are technically astute and have enough time
to review lots of documents from different areas, you will probably end up on
IESG.  OTOH, if you don't have enough time to review large numbers of
documents from different areas, you aren't likely to have a sufficently broad
perspective to warrant allowing you to override the opinions of those who do.

Of course you can still contribute your expertise in numerous ways - by
participating in WG discussions, sending comments to WGs you don't participate
regularly in, sending Last Call comments, sending comments to IESG well in
advance of Last Call, submitting your own drafts, etc.  All of these are
highly appreciated, and some of them - particularly Last Call comments - carry
considerable weight.  But just because you are enamored with (your opinion of)
your expertise doesn't mean that you get to have your work endorsed by the
entire organization without having it reviewed by people who attempt to make
sure that it makes sense from a broad perspective.

Keith

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 10:22:16 -0700

Keith Moore wrote:
> and egocentric fools.

Ditto for the ADs themselves.

>  Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing 

On both counts.

> technical opinion that one approach is more valid than another.  That's their

Ditto for individuals. ADs don't have a lock on tech bias and vendor
neutrality, nor are they immune from favoring one of a number of equally
valid approaches, esp. when disagreeing about architectural futures
(e.g., NATs vs. non-NATs).

> perspective to warrant allowing you to override the opinions of those who do.

Consider the case where you're PAID to participate in a number of WGs
(as I am, for example), either by your employer or a project sponsor. In
those cases, you're unlikely to get a green-light to do 80% IESG, even
if that's how much time you spend on IETF-related stuff anyway. The
letter of support is the issue.

It's naiive to assume that ADs are self-selecting for anything except
the set of rules that have been setup as prerequisite. It's certainly
not self-selecting just on broad expertise, lack of vendor bias, etc. -
although the NOMCOM tries to do a good job, they often don't have an
alternative (as has already been noted) because many good people have
the qualifications but aren't allowed to apply.

> sure that it makes sense from a broad perspective.

And the ADs, just because they are enamored of sitting at the dias at
meetings, don't have a lock on broad perspective. If they want THEIR
positions endorsed by the ENTIRE organization they can make their case
to the ENTIRE organization before Last Call.

If they're right, rough consensus will work. If not, then they shouldn't
 have a unique right to overrides.

Joe

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:55:07 -0400

>> The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically  
>> astute people and egocentric fools.
>
>>  Depending on whom you ask, you'll get differing opinions as who  
>> which people are in which category.
>
> On both counts.

yes, and yes.  But there are far fewer egocentric fools in IESG than  
among those disagreeing with IESG.

The real trick for IESG is to pay due attention to valid comments  
without getting bogged down in discussion with egocentric but  
otherwise intelligent fools.

> nor are [ADs] immune from favoring one of a number of equally

NAT vs. non-NAT are not equally valid, by any stretch of the  
imagination.    A network with large numbers of NATs is inherently  
less reliable, more complex, less capable of supporting applications,  
more difficult to manage, more failure-prone, and generally more  
costly than a similar-sized network without NATs - even if those NATs  
support mechanisms for allowing apps to circumvent some of their  
limitations.

The ability to understand the consequences of technical choices -  
like the choice of whether to endorse or discourage NAT - is  
essential for doing good engineering, and for reviewing others'  
engineering work.

> the qualifications but aren't allowed to apply.

ADs aren't self-selecting, they're selected by NOMCOM.  And it's been  
my understanding that NOMCOM generally does have alternatives, though  
perhaps not many _good_ alternatives.  If you want to claim that the  
workload of being on IESG is so high that we can't recruit enough  
good candidates, you'll get no argument from me about that.  That's  
why I look for ways to lessen IESG's workload while still maintaining  
document quality.

>  have a unique right to overrides.

ADs don't have a "right" to override anything.  They are, however,  
entrusted with the power to review documents on behalf of the  
organization.  We extend this trust to a few carefully-screened  
people to avoid the situation where a much larger number of self- 
selecting people have the ability to make arbitrary, contradicting,  
and sometimes incompetent statements on behalf of the organization.

The latter kind of organization would be useless, and its imprimatur  
would carry negative weight, because only the incompetent would work  
there.

Keith

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 11:11:41 -0700

> among those disagreeing with IESG.

Only because the IESG is a smaller set, IMO.

> without getting bogged down in discussion with egocentric but  otherwise
> intelligent fools.

Ditto for the IETF paying attention to ADs, IMO.

> imagination.

While I agree, that hasn't been the position of the ADs, or the IETF as
a whole over time.

...
> The ability to understand the consequences of technical choices -  like
> the choice of whether to endorse or discourage NAT - is  essential for
> doing good engineering, and for reviewing others'  engineering work.

Which is why I am suspicious of how the ADs endorsed NATs for political
(IMO) reasons when they first came out, and how we were encouraged to
support them where possible, even when they violated the basic tenets of
the Internet architecture expressed by existing Internet Standard docs.

The point here isn't NATs; it's that whether something is an
architectural, correctness, corporate, or personal rant is a matter of
perspective in many cases.

> ADs aren't self-selecting, they're selected by NOMCOM.

- From a self-selected set of those who filled out applications - based on
a filter of hurdles.

...
> organization.  We extend this trust to a few carefully-screened  people
> to avoid the situation where a much larger number of self- selecting
> people have the ability to make arbitrary, contradicting,  and sometimes
> incompetent statements on behalf of the organization.

So we have a smaller set entrusted to do the same? The setsize isn't the
issue; it's the imbalance of control.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 14:31:43 -0400

>> people

The setsize and imbalance of control are not issues, they are  
features.  You can't get reasonable consistency or quality any other  
way.  Again, you seem to be ignoring the numerous remedies to abuse  
or poor decision-making that exist (some formal, others informal).

This discussion has long since become circular, we're not converging,  
and I'd rather be doing useful technical work.  So this will be my  
last post on this thread.  You may now have the last word.

Keith

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 02:11:55 +0200

>Ditto for the ADs themselves.

Has this a real importance? The control is by IETF as a whole, _if_ rough 
consensus is the rule. What is expected from ADs is to make sure that what 
is proposed meets a rough consensus. This could possibly include commenting 
their concerns before the Last Call if they feel it necessary. This may 
include their advise. They should however _never_ consider anything else 
than consensus. If they have other concerns they should join the WG.

Technically astute people and egocentric fools are usually both out of 
consensus.

The only thing expected from IETF as a whole is a permanent consensus never 
to prevent technically astute fools' solutions from developing outside of 
the IETF until they may be understood and possibly accepted by its members 
as part of their consensus. This is why, the IANA registry and Best New 
Practice question is so important.

May be a solution would be to consider an Internet Innovation Task Force to 
serve as an astute fool's test bed. The rule there would not be consensus 
but the most astute solution, by participant votes. If you consider Source 
Forge, it works de facto in this way.
jfc

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 09:28:40 -0700

Jefsey,

> > > The set of people disagreeing with ADs include both technically astute 
> > > people and egocentric fools.
> >

That is *not* how things are done today. As I mentioned before "rough 
consensus" goes only up to a certain point, but after that point the IETF
operates solely by a decree from the IESG.

Yakov.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 14:37:22 -0400

>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> writes:

    Jeffrey> On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch
    Jeffrey> <[email-masked]> wrote:

    >> They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the difference
    >> between the two. IMO, they could, were they involved in the
    >> process.

    Jeffrey> If I may read between the lines here, it sounds like
    Jeffrey> you're suggesting some sort of reality-check process that
    Jeffrey> is more lightweight than a full appeal. Informally, we
    Jeffrey> have that -- if one AD is giving me a hard time for a
    Jeffrey> dumb reason, I can ask another AD to try to talk some
    Jeffrey> sense into them.  But that only works if the participant
    Jeffrey> has a good relationship with another AD, and while you
    Jeffrey> hope that's true for WG chairs, that might not always be
    Jeffrey> good enough.

Such a procedure exists.  Go to the tracker, select a document and
click on the link that describes what the IESG votes mean (discuss vs
yes vs no objection)

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and find the alternate override
procedure that the chair can use.

It has never actually been used.  We came very close once since I've
been on the IESG.  In retrospect, I think we would have been better
off using the override procedure than spending an extra month dealing
with the issue.  In my opinion the document was improved by resolving
the discuss but the improvement was not great and the frustration was.

Of course the override wouldn't have actually gotten the document
approved faster: another issue surfaced and took a long time to
resolve.  The new issue was something that even the sponsor felt was
important to deal with.

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 14:39:45 -0400

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Touch <[email-masked]> writes:

    Joe> Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
    >> 
    >> 
    >> On Thursday, April 28, 2005 03:39:36 PM -0700 Joe Touch
    >> <[email-masked]>
    >> wrote:
    >> 
    >>> They're only equivalent if another AD can't tell the
    >>> difference between the two. IMO, they could, were they
    >>> involved in the process.
    >> 
    >> 
    >> If I may read between the lines here, it sounds like you're
    >> suggesting some sort of reality-check process that is more
    >> lightweight than a full appeal. Informally, we have that -- if
    >> one AD is giving me a hard time for a dumb reason, I can ask
    >> another AD to try to talk some sense into them.  But that only
    >> works if the participant has a good relationship with another
    >> AD, and while you hope that's true for WG chairs, that might
    >> not always be good enough.

    Joe> Yup - it relies too much on goodwill and who-knows-whom,
    Joe> which is unfair to those who are trying to get things through
    Joe> for the first time.  

Joe, fundamentally human interaction depends on good will.  Things are
always easier the first time.  Depending on how they go then it may or
may not be easier the next time.

The only other option is to make things uniformly bad all the time.

Assuming that there is good will and working with people can go a long
way.  If you have a problem ask if you can talk about it; if email is
not working try the phone or instant messaging.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 22:50:39 -0700

> The only other option is to make things uniformly bad all the time.

Procedures are there for when good will isn't enough. I agree they
shouldn't be the first course of action, but they are the backup plan.

And even people experiencing the system for the first time need a backup.

> not working try the phone or instant messaging.

And when that fails - that's what the rest of what we're talking about
is focused on, IMO.

Joe

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 15:26:14 +0200

John C Klensin wrote:
> Ralph,
> 
> An interesting, obviously reasonable, and not-unexpected perspective.  
> But the question wasn't addressed just to you -- I think it would be 
> useful to hear from others, especially those who have put in a few terms 
> as WG chairs or doc editors, on this.   What I've heard, very 
> indirectly, from some nomcoms is that they sometimes return incumbents, 
> in spite of seeing a need for turnover, because they have had no 
> plausible alternatives. To the extent to which that is a real issue, I 
> think it means two things to the community:
> 
> around until there are alternatives.  That might involve workload/ work 
> description changes, training alternatives and more "leadership 
> development", or other factors, but it seems to me that the question is 
> becoming critical-path.

One point is that it is very hard to convey the reality of what it
means to be an AD except by giving somebody the job. Like any other
job, the description doesn't convey the reality. Even having sat on
IESG calls for some years while I was IAB Chair, the reality of
actually being an AD (even for a tiny little area like the General
Area) was a surprise. Even for those who were ADs a few years ago,
I'm sure the current reality would carry a few surprises.

But the ADs are all human and all had to learn to be an AD. I think there
are a lot more people in the IETF who would be *capable* of doing the
job than the NomCom hears about. Please don't be modest, when the call
for nominations comes around again.

> about areas and IETF capabilities.  In particular, suppose we have an 
> area that has so little leadership depth that the nomcom does not have 
> reasonable choices of AD candidates. Is it time to declare that the IETF 
> lacks the resources to pursue the work of that area in an effective way 
> and then shut it down?  That is not a propoosal, just a question that, I 

We also have (when I last checked) *more* I-Ds pouring in than ever before.
So I do find it hard to believe that we don't have people entering this
community who are smart and motivated and should be considered for
WG responsibilities. And I find it hard to believe that among our ~200
WG chairs we don't have people who should be considered for IESG
responsibilities. In other words, I think we all have a duty to ensure
that NomCom hears about the talent that we do have available.

    Brian

> 
>     john
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, May 05, 2005 08:48 -0400 Ralph Droms <[email-masked]> 
> wrote:
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 13:21:47 +0200

This is a combined response to a number of messages under
the same subject field:

Ralph Droms wrote:
...
> provided earlier, in an open forum.

That doesn't scale, since all ADs are at least in theory supposed
to look at all drafts that land on the IESG's table. They will only
be able to engage earlier (pre and during Last Call) in a very small
fraction of cases. As long as the IESG is the back-stop, there *will*
be late feedback - it's inevitable.

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
...
 > Once again we come back to one of the core problems with the IETF
 > processes being a complete lack of information on the Web site.

That's hyperbole, but we are very much aware that the web site needs
a rethink. And we're also aware that that is a costly and complex
process.

John Loughney wrote:
 > Bill,
 >
 > When is a DISCUSS not a discuss? When it is a "You have to fix
 > this and I'm holding a DISCUSS until it's fixed." I've seen variations
 > on there as a draft editor and it's not always clear. In the past,
 > this has been an issue with ADs who have not engaged the WG. It helps
 > to have an explanation of the DISCUSS.

Somewhat oversimplifying, I think you will find two types of DISCUSS
in the tracker:

1. Problems that need fixing, are fairly easy to fix, and most people
will agree on the fix once it is pointed out.

These very often get fixed very quickly - quite possibly during the week
between the document being placed on the IESG agenda and the time of
the telechat - and cause little pain.

2. Problems whose validity and/or solution is contentious. Unless you
want to remove the IESG's role as a back-stop, there is no painless
way to resolve these. Somebody is going to have change their mind.
I can only agree with those who say that open discussion is the best
way to deal with these cases. It's the document shepherd, I think, who
has to make sure that discussion happens ASAP.

     Brian