Yakov... good to see that you read all my postings ;-)
I think you are taking a few things out of context here.
When I was speaking up in the TE-WG, I was speaking up
because I feel that the WGs under my responsibility would
work MUCH better if we can motivate as many people as
possible to actually read and comment on documents in the
WG. And when new work needs to get done in an IETF WG,
then I feel that we need to have many people to be willing
to contribute (at least read and comment).
I feel that we would also want that when we do an IETF
Last Call for work that originates in the IETF, that is
when we do an IETF Last Call for a document that comes
out of a WG. And in fact, for many IETF originated work
(even out of WGs), very few IETF Last Calls do generate
a lot of feedback. I will admit that in most cases, all of
us on the IESG would want to have lots more comment, also
positive comment in the form "I read it and it is good"
or some of the other forms I posted to the TE-WG mailing
list.
When we need consensus from the IETF for code point
assignments in a IANA controlled registry, and when we
need those for work that has been standardized (or is
being standardized elsewhere), so in this case in OIF
and ITU-T, then I do not see that we really need to
have a lot of positive feedback from the IETF community.
In my view, what we are looking for is to find out if
the other organisation (or person) is not violating
the protocols such that it hurts or does harm.
In fact, several of the things that the drafts under
discussion request assignment for are things that most
of us in the IETF decided we did not want to work on.
ANd part of that was that many IETF-ers did not like
the approach, part of it was that we felt it was not
our competence or the area that we felt needed to be
addressed. So we send those people away, and they
found other places to do their work.
We still do not have to like it.
But I do not see why we need to block code point assignments
as long as their work does not harm/hurt our own use of
the protocols in which they ask for code points.
Hope this helps and explains.
Bert
Thanks,
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net]
Sent: vrijdag 24 januari 2003 16:36
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Stephen
Trowbridge; David Charlap; Loa Andersson
Subject: Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational
Bert,
[clipped...]
Two points:
- the extensions to LDP were found to be in space that requires
IETF Consensus, and so Scott and I asked for an IETF Last Call
on the document. That is an explicit OPEN process
Quoting from the e-mail you sent recently:
If not enough people (and 10 is the absolute minumum, but
having seen
the attendence of TWEG sessions, I'd expect 25 or more) can speak up
to state one of:
- I read it and I am positive, it is good stuff
- I read it and I see no problems or objections
- I read it but I cannot determine if it is bad, but I can see that
what has been discussed in the WG is indeed in the document
- I read it and I have these nits/objections...
- I did not read it cause this is not relevant to my xxx
job/work/function
- I did not read it cause I think this is nonsense
Then I get the feeling that we're just allowing a small group of
people push their petty-project through the process. That seems NOT
good to me. We need serious WG participation in reading and
commenting
in one of these forums above, before we can declare that we have WG
consensus on a document to be presented to IESG for approval as RFC
(in whatever form).
Since (as you said) the extensions required IETF consensus, and
with the above in mind could you please share with the rest of
us the information on how many people spoke up about the draft
to state one of:
- I read it and I am positive, it is good stuff
- I read it and I see no problems or objections
- I read it but I cannot determine if it is bad, but I can see that
what has been discussed in the WG is indeed in the document
- I read it and I have these nits/objections...
- I did not read it cause this is not relevant to my xxx
job/work/function
- I did not read it cause I think this is nonsense
Yakov.