-----Original Message-----
Well, first let me say that ADs who sponsor documents are
already concerned about perceived conflict of interest,
Which is a good thing since there is no Hold-Harmless Agreement anywhere - and
apparently this makes the AD's civilly liable for damages their actions cause
within the IETF, including those of he WG Chairs they are responsible for
overseeing. This isnt my rules - they are theeeeeeeee general rules of
liability. Without some agreement setting liability aside - the whole house of
cards could easily come donw IMHO.
so
your second bullet is pretty unlikely for "employment by the
same company" unless their relationship within the company is
quite distant and the topic one where AD sponsorship is common
(Even in some of those cases, co-ADs are asked to consider the
document instead).
The problem is that there is no oversight policyto prevent this type of
problem. And Technical People are as greedy and as unscrupulous as any other
group of people.
Ted, my point was not that this happened. My general experience
with WG integrity has been between "excellent" and "beyond all
reasonable expectations".
Then you havent spent much time in the Security AD where this type of abuse
runs rampant. Especiallyt in PKIX.
The point was that, since there is no
written model for AD sponsorship, the above is not prohibited,
there are no public/published guidelines, and we had best avoid
loading more meaning onto that track without considerably
clarifying what it means.
John - detail sets you free - open loopholes kill us all.
And that raises my second issue: we have lots of history that
says keeping working groups around forever creates problems,
so there are topic areas where the IETF work product is the
foundation of the industry use of a protocol but there is no
active WG. What an AD should look for in community review
The IETF's real problem here is that its community wants to "protect the
Internet" and that is not the Role of the IETF. The IETF is not the keeping of
the Internet, nor is ISOC. Much to everyone's dismay the Internet is a
privately operated convienience except for the CIPR/NIPR circuits and other
federally subsidized wire services.
of
a document in some of those cases is well defined (in the URN
NID case, for example, explicit review is called out by the
urn-nid list; media type review, explicit review is called for
by ietf-types list, etc.). In others, you have the mailing
list of the closed working group to go on (e.g. LDAPEXT for
LDAP extensions) and potentially a directorate (LDAP has one
such). For standards-track document, ADs should (and I
believe usually do) consult the relevant lists (even if there
are no WGs) as well as putting out an IETF Last Call.
This is fine. I would identify most, probably all, of the
thing you list as byproducts of the standards track. If they
were the only sorts of documents that got AD sponsorship for
publication, we would not be having this discussion (at least as
far as I'm concerned). But AD sponsorship has also been
advocated for documents that would normally be handled as
independent submissions --that have no direct relationship to
work done in the IETF, ever-- just because it is faster and more
efficient. I think that, if we try to attach "IETF product"
terminology to those sorts of things, we are in trouble.
Again, if there were clear criteria...
We could, I believe, explicitly require an IETF Last Call for
all Informational and Experimental documents that are AD
sponsored; at the moment, it is a judgement call by the AD
based on what level of community review something needs or has
already received. If we go that route, though, I think we
have to be pretty aware of what it means for review cycles and
delay.
Yes.
We've wandered off topic for this WG, though, and I suggest
continuing in private email or on ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_)
But, if ADs are going to sponsor documents and that fact makes
them "IETF products", and the rules for IETF products are
different than those for other RFCs, it seems to me that is
still on-topic for this WG.
john
_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
Ipr-wg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf