Minority opinions [Re: [dean@av8.com: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]]

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> At 19:17 27/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> > > My proposition would be to create a "minority position" system. Where 
> > > such groups could be accepted as opposing without having to be fighting.
> >
> >
> > There is a perfectly civilised way of handling minority opinions already.
> >
> > Please see RFC 3246 and RFC 3248 for an example I was personally
> > involved in. 3246 is the consensus and 3248 is the minority
> > opinion.
>
>
> Unfortunately not. RFC 3246 is Standard Track, RFC 3248 is 
> informational. RFC 3246 is published.

They are both published, and obviously the consensus document is
the one on the standards track. It exactly an example of the IETF
publishing a minority opinion. Obviously, we couldn't publish two
standards for the same bits.

> This case is when two IETF groups 
> have different opinions.
>
> The case I refer to is when an SSDO consensus opposes an IETF-WG 
> consensus, 

That doesn't affect what the IETF publishes. The IETF publishes
the documents that it reaches consensus on, after considering all
contributions. Liaisons from other SDOs are considered. That doesn't
mean we take them as instructions or have any obligations.

When we become aware of another SDO working on an alternative
solution, we normally attempt to engage in dialogue, but there is
no algorithm for how that dialogue will terminate.

> while the Internet is no more a place where one can consider 
> that an erroneous RFC supported by market leaders will quickly deprecate 
> and not hurt.
>
> The resources of the other SSDO are dedicated to its own business. It 
> may however make the effort of a QA delegate to the Internet standard 
> process. Experience shows that without an MoU a conflict may quickly 
> develop (as if two foot-ball teams met, but one team would, in addition 
> to be a challenger, have only one player present. This is all the more 
> true if the results of the match counts for the world cup).
>
> The "minority position" would avoid to enter into an SSDO/IETF complex 
> MoU and liaison committee (I feel you are not found of anyway). All the 
> more than the problem may be purely occasional and the solution be to 
> politely pay attention to mutual needs rather than to ban the SSDO 
> liaison. This can only be detrimental to a final common solution and 
> would resolve nothing since the SSDO has human resources a plenty.

If people from another SDO wish to submit a draft for publication as
an RFC, I can't see any reason why the "RFC 3248 approach won't work.
I can't see any need to add more process than we already have.

    Brian



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf