-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Warren Kumari
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:22 PM
To: Pete Resnick
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [IETF] Content-free Last Call comments
[ Not sure if this is adding to the Signal or the Noise on the Discuss
list, but it *will* help bump up my ranking on the "Weekly posting
summary", which I use to justify my participation to my management.
That's what it's for, isn't it?!* ] On Jun 10, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Pete
Resnick <presnick(_at_)qti(_dot_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> wrote:
Russ, our IAB chair and former IETF chair, just sent a message to the
IETF list regarding a Last Call on draft-ietf-pkix-est. Here is the
entire contents of his message, save quoting the whole Last Call
request:
On 6/10/13 1:45 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
I have read the document, I a support publication on the standards
track.
Russ
A month ago, we had another very senior member of the community post
just such a message (in that case directly to the IESG) in response to a
different Last Call. I took that senior member of the community to task
for it. But apparently Russ either disagrees with my complaint or didn't
notice that discussion on the IESG list, so I think it's worth airing
here in public:
A statement such as the above is almost entirely useless to me as an
IESG member trying to determine consensus. It is content-free.
I disagree.
We don't vote in the IETF, so a statement of support without a reason
is meaningless. We should not be encouraging folks to send such things,
and having the IAB chair do so is encouraging bad behavior. Had I not
known Russ and his particular expertise, I would have no reason to take
it into consideration *at all*. We should not have to determine the
reputation of the poster to determine the weight of the message. Even
given my background knowledge of who Russ is, I cannot tell from that
message which one of the following Russ is saying:
- This document precisely describes a protocol of which I have been an
implementer, and I was able to independently develop an interoperable
implementation from the document.
- This document is about a technology with which I have familiarity
and I have reviewed the technical details. It's fine.
- I've seen objection X to the document and I think the objection is
incorrect for such-and-so reasons.
- My company has a vested interest in this technology becoming a
standard, and even though I know nothing about it, I support it becoming
a standards track document.
- My Aunt Gertrude is the document editor and she said that she needs
statements of support, so here I am.
- I have a running wager on when we're going to reach RFC 7000 and I
want to increase my odds of winning.
I take it I am supposed to presume from my friendship and knowledge of
Russ that one of the first three is true and that the last three are
not.
(Well, maybe the last one might be true.) But if instead of from "Russ
Housely", the message was from "Foo Bar", I would have absolutely no way
to distinguish among the above.
Actually, yes.
Russ has been participating in the IETF (and specifically in the area
where he posted the above email) for a long time -- you know this,
because you've also been participating.
In *my opinion* he has shown himself to be diligent and sane. This means
that *I* would give his comment and support great weight -- I'd *assume*
he has read and understood the document, and is supporting it because
#1, 2, 3 and / or 6. If Foo Bar had posted the comment, and in *my*
opinion Foo Bar is a total nutter, I would give his comment less, or
possibly negative, weight. Obviously your opinions of Russ and Foo may
be opposite to mine -- you apply your own weighting to each comment --
that's why we pay you the big bucks...
If Foo Bar is new enough to the IETF and cannot reasonably expect
everyone on the IESG (or in a WG or wherever) to know and have formed an
opinion of him, then it is *Foo Bar's* responsibility to more fully
support his comments.
Do folk who actually *participate* actively and sanely get to assume
that they have earned some standing and credibility? Yup. I view this as
a feature, not a bug.
If I go to my doctor and he tells me that I simply have a cold (and not,
like I'm convinced, the plague), I should presumably weight his comments
higher than those of my crazy next door neighbor (who, apparently,
routinely communicates with beings from another dimension), yes?
We want to reward merit and participation, not make the process so
annoying that those who participate get annoyed and wander off.
If anyone *opposes* a draft, I think that it behooves them to explain
what the issue is, regardless of who they are. This is similar to at a
restaurant -- when the waiter asks if you are enjoying your [steak|tofu]
it's fine to say "Yes thanks, great", but if express displeasure you
should be ready to explain what you didn't like.
I think we should stop with these one-line statements of support. They
don't add anything to the consensus call. I'm disappointed that Russ
contributed to this pattern.
Other opinions?
My opinion is that the folk on the IETF / WG chairs / anyone evaluating
information uses their opinion on the source of that information as
input to it's weight. This is why we have people judging consensus (see
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-01 :-P) and not
voting / an algorithm.
W
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
[*]: :-P
--
"He who laughs last, thinks slowest."
-- Anonymous