ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice

2013-12-13 05:27:42

A reminder from the Tao:

"One fact that confuses many novices is that the face-to-face WG meetings are 
much less important in the IETF than they are in most other organizations. Any 
decision made at a face-to-face meeting must also gain consensus on the WG 
mailing list. There are numerous examples of important decisions made in WG 
meetings that are later overturned on the mailing list, often because someone 
who couldn't attend the meeting pointed out a serious flaw in the logic used to 
come to the decision. Finally, WG meetings aren't "drafting sessions", as they 
are in some other standards bodies: in the IETF, drafting is done elsewhere."

In other words, it wasn't over in Vancouver.

I'd like to know if this draft is being ramroaded through, or whether those 
doing so are novices unaware of how the IETF traditionally operates.

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/


________________________________________
From: ietf [ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter 
[brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: 13 December 2013 01:54
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-farrell-perpass-attack-02.txt> (Pervasive 
Monitoring is an Attack) to Best Current Practice

[..]
And when I look at the IAB website, I am bemused.  The IAB is calling
for papers for a conference on this precise topic, to be held in three
months, by which time you want this I-D to be signed, sealed and
delivered.

Yes - this is a statment of principle. We can continue to waste time
wordsmithing, or we can just put it out there and save bits.

So that the IAB can wave it at all participants and say
'Discussion over'?  Or what?

The discussion of the principle *was* over in Vancouver.
Workshops, and IETF WGs, have to apply the principle to actual
technology.

It seems to me that this I-D is an ideal candidate to be presented and
discussed at the conference after which, the IAB can produced a
carefully considered document.

I hope the workshop will be discussing specific technology, or at
least specific technical guidelines, not wordsmithing the general
principle.

On 13/12/2013 01:37, Stewart Bryant wrote:

I should add to this response that Dave Crocker
proposed that we pull back on this BCP and
explicitly consider its impact in each of our
working groups.

I strongly disagree. That detailed consideration should
follow *after* the general principle has been committed
to the RFC repository. Otherwise we will simply enter a
maze of looping discussions.

    Brian

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>