ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Why ask for IETF Consensus on a WG document?

2011-06-24 11:56:27
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