On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:10:49PM -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
> The individual submission ploy would likely not work in this case -
> i.e., work that fails to attract the interest of a WG won't be easily
> accepted by the IESG (and the IETF in general). At least not work in
> the sense that folks generally want something to be standardized.


true enough.

> Informational and Experimental submissions may fly, though, I'll give
> you that, but not standards track. Unless one individual can
> convince the IESG that the DNS working groups are all washed up on a
> topic.


in fact, they -SHOULD- fly.

> But the IETF is all about interoperability. If interoperability of
> some feature is important, you will get people willing to work on a
> document. The IETF stamp of approval should be reserved for that.


er... the IETF doesn't do "interoperability"... it may demand
that implementations are interoperable, but it does "do" that
work.

> I think that sometimes we get caught up in document process
> self-importance. Documents are not the important thing, nor are
> theoretic ideals.


what -IS- important is documenting choices and options. what was
tried and why.

> What's important is providing a service to our
> community, i.e., collaboration on fundamental ideas and solving real
> problems. Inter-area review is important, that's why IETF's are held
> in one large center three times a year. Getting an idea into an RFC
> isn't the goal.


RFC == Request For Comments ... getting ideas into a persistant,
available, public archive is critical. even bad ideas, false leads,
and dead ends deserve to be documented ... if only to show others WHY
we ended up where we did. (this is where I REALLY disagree w/ the
current IETF chair on his quest to expunge this type of material from
the RFC archives.)

> The IETF is an arena that thrives on innovation and innovative ideas.
> But ultimately the ideas that survive are those that benefit the
> non-IETF community. I believe that this is the reason why Internet
> Drafts expire after 6 months - meritorious pipe dreams are noble but
> unimportant and we have to accept that.


IDs are "supposed" to be ephemeral places to draft ideas. If the
ideas are explored further, via implementation or other means, then
IMHO, they are deserving of persistant documentation, e.g RFC status.
The IETF got bogged down in Vendors insistance that RFCs were all
of equal weight... hence the attempts to classify RFCs into catagories.
... which fails. So now there are serious attemtps to recast IDs as
persistant documents... a sad commentary on the documentation process.

> So, I also agree that only ideas of widespread
> voluntary-as-far-as-the-IETF-goes should survive within a working
> group. Admittance of an idea is not like getting tenure - the idea
> should be de-admitted once it falls from interest.


i want a persistant archive of everything... even the goofy.
but for WG acceptance, i'm comfortable w/ the bar we are setting
for ourselves. i'm in favor of indivual submission and getting
RFC status for that kind of work, if only as experimental or informational.

> At 4:28 +0000 11/19/05, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >if only a small group are interested, there is always the individual
> >submission route...
> >
> >--bill
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:15:12PM -0500, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
> >>
> >> Killing the document is the ultimate threat, as Paul points out
> >> there are ways, including prodding people personally.
> >>
> >> In earnest if only 3 people care about a document is it worth
> >> writing in the first place ?
> >>
> >> Olafur
> >>
> >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Paul Vixie wrote:
> >>
> >> ># How are you going to get folks to review the proposal if they dont
> >> ># do it voluntarily as it is now and required number is not reached?
> >> >
> >> >peer pressure. either the wg, or the authors, or the design team, or
> >> >interested others, will tap on various shoulders, request, demand,
> >> bribe,
> >> >cajole, or even threaten, to get enough reviewers to step forward.
> >> >
> >> >the ietf community and culture has many problems but this isn't one of
> >> >them. if this rule goes into effect, then i predict immediate and
> >> >positive results for the quality of this WG's output.
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
> >> >the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> >> >archive:
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
> >> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> >> archive:

> >
> >--
> >to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
> >the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> >archive:

>
> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
> NeuStar
>
> 3 months to the next trip. I guess it's finally time to settle down and
> find a grocery store.


--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: