[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballot result: Element vs Packet

1997-11-04 22:13:16
I find this wholly offensive. This is an IETF Working Group, not a informal
gang of developers making a spec by brute force.

Lutz, you have previously claimed ignorance of IETF rules, and it appears
that you have not done anything to fix that ignorance. I'd like to repeat
what the WG chairperson said weeks ago:

Lutz, let me speak more plainly.  The chair will not hear further
discussion on this issue.  The chair did not call for a straw poll.  There
will be no vote on this.

Which part of that did you not understand?

Paul, I agree 100%.

Folks, in case you haven't figured it out, this WG is in trouble. Discussion is
wandering all over the map rather than focusing on the deliverables this WG is
supposed to produce. Discussions of, say, RSA press releases, is _entirely_ out
of order.

I am also concerned that when I look at the IETF Web page for this WG for
Internet Drafts I find ... nothing. I see one formats draft from July on the
IMC Web site, I see what appears to be a modified version of this posted by
Lutz to the list (which isn't the correct thing to do with drafts, BTW), I have
a messasge from the chair saying that he's asked the various authors to work
together to get a combined draft out, and I have a message from Jon Callas
saying that he's going to merge all this stuff and have a draft out RSN. 

This is all quite confusing. Internet drafts are an essential part of a WG's
operation. Not having produced any at this point would be fine. Missing the Oct
97 schedule for a draft is of no real consequence. Having all these documents
lying around in lieu of legitimate drafts, however, is not fine.

This group needs to get drafts out in the proper way, develop a list of open
issues in those drafts, and hammer away at the issues on the list until they
are all resolved.