Subject: Two step, three step, one step, and alternatives

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:01:47 -0500

Russ,

I'd like to make a suggestion that I hope you will find helpful.

We've now got your/the IESG's two-step proposal, Dave's
alternative, discussions about going directly to single step, an
orthogonal proposal about STD numbers (or an alternative), some
other suggestions that haven't made it as far as I-Ds, and
probably some things I've missed or forgotten.  To a greater or
lesser extent, each of these has produced a flurry of comments
on the list.  Those flurries have mostly occurred just before or
during IETF when some of us can't manage to read messages that
are not absolutely critical-path.  They also create a lot of
noise for those who aren't interested and may cause relevant
discussions of other topics to be lost.

For protocol specs, our normal way to sort of competing and
variant proposals is to form a WG.  We know that doesn't work
well for procedural documents.

Partially as an experiment, would you consider creating a
separate list, pointing the discussion there, and appointing a
rapporteur or two with responsibility for figuring out when
discussions have stabilized and then coming back to the IETF
list with a summary of that stability point, tradeoffs, etc.?

I'm not at all sure it would work but, if it did, it would save
us time and likely result in a better result.   Worth a try?

   john

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 07:35:29 +0800

On 11/13/2010 7:01 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> alternative, discussions about going directly to single step,

Single step???

That's not the alternative proposal that we put forward.  It is an alternative 
two step:

    <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-ietf-twostage-00>

It even makes that clear in the I-D filename.

It's primary distinction is different criteria for the second step.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:49:25 -0500

--On Saturday, 13 November, 2010 07:35 +0800 Dave CROCKER
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> That's not the alternative proposal that we put forward.  It
> is an alternative two step:

Sorry Dave.  At the end of an IETF week, I guess we are all
tired.  Please note the comma and parse that as
 - the IESG's two-step proposal,
 - Dave's alternative [two-step proposal],
 - discussions about going directly to single-step,
 -    [...]

  john

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:17:59 +0800

On 11/13/2010 7:49 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>   At the end of an IETF week, I guess we are all

Actually I think this was karmic retribution.  I should have taken my own advice 
and waited to get my coffee...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:04:30 +0800

+1

On Nov 13, 2010, at 7:01 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 08:45:20 +0100

> list with a summary of that stability point, tradeoffs, etc.?
Call it what you will, this sounds like NEWTRK revisited.  What will be
different?

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 03:31:10 -0500

--On Saturday, November 13, 2010 08:45 +0100 Eliot Lear
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Call it what you will, this sounds like NEWTRK revisited.
> What will be different?

At least three things... maybe.

	First, I/we have been told repeatedly that this is a new
	IESG and that, even were we to revisit NEWTRK exactly,
	we might well see a different result.
	
	Second, one of the problems with WGs for this sort of
	issue is that they meet and have conflicts with WGs that
	are doing protocol work, thereby ending up with a very
	selected sample of the IETF population as participants.
	I'm proposing a discussion --basically exactly the
	discussion that is occurring on the IETF list only with
	more focus and an organized reporting process-- not a WG.
	
	Third, we might actually have learned some things since
	NEWTRK.  Even the current version of the most ambitious
	NEWTRK proposal --the ISD one-- contains a very
	different and less burdensome transition model.

And the alternative you would propose is?

    john

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 02:54:39 -0600

Eliot,

I'm agreeing with John here, but have one addition ...

> we might well see a different result.

First.5, I might add that NEWTRK was in the perfect storm of ADMINREST, a 
flock of other GEN-area working groups and BOFs (ICAR? MPOWER? what were the 
others?) and pretty much zero transparency. I note that the last NEWTRK 
meeting, in Paris, was almost exactly the time that the IESG added scribes 
to provide narrative minutes - from the official secretariat-provided 
minutes, it's pretty much impossible to tell if any of the NEWTRK topics 
were ever discussed, and if they were, who on the IESG expressed concerns, 
and what those concerns might have been. None of those conditions are still 
true today.

Spencer