On Jun 24, 2011, at 12:36 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Keith Moore
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 4:48 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: IETF-Discussion list; Paul Hoffman; The IESG
Subject: Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?
It's problematic, and I believe inappropriate, to consider WG consensus
as contributing to community consensus. The two questions need to be
considered separately, for two reasons:
1. Working groups often have strong biases and aren't representative of
the whole community. Put another way, a working group often represents
only one side of a tussle, and working groups are often deliberately
chartered in such a way as to minimize the potential for conflict
within the group.
By contrast, working groups tend to contain more expertise than may be
available in an IETF LC; that's partly why they're formed. I've never been
an AD before, but I imagine I might consider the WG consensus to be at least
a little bit more weighty than IETF LC resistance.
WGs tend to contain a narrow range of expertise, even when their work affects a
wide range of concerns. Having a narrow range of expertise is good when the
WG is tasked with doing a particular kind of protocol design. But in general I
don't think an "ops" group is in a good position to make recommendations on
behalf of the whole IETF about things that aren't related to operations. If
they want to say "we want to call attention to these significant operational
problems with protocol X" or " we recommend these particular operational
practices to help protocol X work well" I think that's fine. I don't think
it's fine for them to be trying to harm things that other people are using, at
least not without some broader community input.
For that matter, if you object vehemently to something a WG produces, then
the work is of interest to you, and I have to wonder why you weren't at least
silently tracking that working group in the first place.
This one caught me completely by surprise. I happened to notice, almost by
accident, the discussion on the 6to4-advisory document, and was able to
participate in some of that discussion. The main result of my participation
in that conversation, I think, was that I became convinced that disabling 6to4
by default really is the right thing to do... mostly because of the impending
imposition of LSN. But 6to4-historic goes way too far, and I wasn't aware of
the 6to4-historic effort until IETF LC.
Following WG discussion requires a significant commitment. I'm peripherally
interested in v6ops, but until recently I had assumed that they were generally
up to Good Stuff and didn't need my input for damage control purposes. And the
6to4-advisory document is quite well written, and I came away from that
discussion with the mistaken impression that the balance shown in that document
was a reflection of the working group as a whole. Also, I've had significant
deadline pressures elsewhere, so haven't been able to check my v6ops mail
folder as often as I'd like.
I don't think it's in IETF's interests to restrict input to only those who can
make the significant commitment required to follow every IETF working group
that might impact their work. Frankly, with so many working groups, it's hard
to even be aware of every working group that might impact one's work.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf