RE: Ietf Digest, Vol 38, Issue 40... Content of IETF digest.

[Mohammed Shahnawaz <mshahnawaz at huawei.com>]

Best regards,

 

Mohammed Shahnawaz

Sr. Engineer - Fixed Communication Dept.

 

HUAWEI TECH. INVESTMENT (OMAN) LLC.

Tel:     +968 24489004, Ext: 149

Fax:    +968 24489378

GSM:  +968 92637431

----------------------------------------------------

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-request at ietf.org [mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org] 
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 8:00 PM
To: ietf at ietf.org
Subject: Ietf Digest, Vol 38, Issue 40

Send Ietf mailing list submissions to
	ietf at ietf.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	ietf-request at ietf.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	ietf-owner at ietf.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ietf digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Autoreply: Last Call: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements
      (Requirements for a DKIM Signing Practices Protocol) to
      Informational RFC (jburguet at cipf.es)
   2. Udaya V Kumar is out of the office. (Udaya V Kumar)
   3. Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re:
      [saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago) (John C Klensin)
   4. Re: Last Call: draft-hutzler-spamops (Email Submission:
      Access and Accountability) to BCP (Chris Newman)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:13:12 +0200
From: jburguet at cipf.es
Subject: Autoreply: Last Call: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements
	(Requirements for a DKIM Signing Practices Protocol) to
Informational
	RFC
To: ietf at ietf.org
Message-ID: <B0001829932@>

I am out (on vacation :) ) until next 16 July. See you then.






------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:32:58 -0600
From: Udaya V Kumar <ukumar at us.ibm.com>
Subject: Udaya V Kumar is out of the office.
To: ietf at ietf.org
Message-ID:
	
<OF524E728E.A90F2363-ON87257302.006B638A-87257302.006B638A at us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


I will be out of the office starting  06/22/2007 and will not return until
07/15/2007.

I will respond to your message when I return as I will have limited access
to my mail.  Please contact Pamela lee (palee at us.ibm.com/415-606-8754) and
Carmen Allen(cpallen at us.ibm.com/609-751-2062) for immediate attention. Thx
- Udaya
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ietf/attachments/20070622/25a7f8f7/attachment
.html

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 19:00:00 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf at jck.com>
Subject: Re: Should I* opinions be afforded a special status? (Re:
	[saag] Declining the ifare bof for Chicago)
To: Lakshminath Dondeti <ldondeti at qualcomm.com>,	Thomas Narten
	<narten at us.ibm.com>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
Message-ID: <3AD52810CF7D49E1CD09B7BF at p3.JCK.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii



--On Sunday, 17 June, 2007 22:43 -0700 Lakshminath Dondeti
<ldondeti at qualcomm.com> wrote:

>> IMO, you have to have a structure/process/rules that assumes
>> people are generally trying to do the Right Thing. For checks
>> and balances, you then also need appeals procedures and a
>> willingness to speak up and challenge parties when there is
>> evidence of bad decision making.
> 
> Agreed.  I guess I challenge when there is an appearance of
> bad decision making.  I would rather not wait until things get
> out of hand and then attempt use of the hammer of appeals.
> That is just my personal preference.

For reasons associated with, but not identical to, Joel's
reasons for objecting to determinism, I think the position you
express here is ultimately dangerous.

I believe that we should be selecting IESG and IAB members who
can and will exhibit very high levels of technical maturity and
breath, and consistent good judgment.   I believe that being
sufficiently mature and self-aware to avoid either substituting
one's own judgment for that of the community or imposing one's
personal preferences as a blocking requirement is a corollary of
that selection criterion.   If we cannot find enough people like
that, we should shrink the relevant bodies and, if necessary,
the amount of work the IETF tries to do, rather than trying to
get by on third-rate people.

If, being human, IESG or IAB members occasionally slip up, or
need to be asked to consider actions a second time and more
carefully, I think the appeals process is reasonable and
appropriate, not some sort of "hammer" that must be used only in
rare and particularly egregious circumstances.  I note, as
others have noted, that most appeals end at the first stage or
two.  I believe that is a sign of health.  

Similarly, if an IESG or IAB member turns out to have been a
seriously bad choice --because the Nomcom, despite its best
efforts, put someone in place who doesn't come up to the
criteria and expectations above-- or burns out and starts
consistently exhibiting behavior that doesn't meet that
standard, then I think we should, as a community, encourage them
to step down (IMO, one of the reasons we don't see recalls more
often is that, if someone insisted on staying on after having
clearly lost the confidence of the community, whatever Nomcom
made the appointment would have made a _really_ bad decision --
arguably much worse than any we have seen).

So my model is that we give the I* a lot of discretion, we
appoint members of whom we have very high expectations about the
technical ability and general wisdom to apply judgment, and then
we hold them to those expectations.  

If, instead, we reduce that discretion, create and take
advantage for more second-guessing over essentially trivial
things, and try to rely more on procedures (and "determinism")
rather than judgment, we will end up recruiting and appointing
the sorts of people who like working in the environment we
create for them.  And, in the long term, I think that causes a
catastrophe (in the pattern of a number of bodies who operate by
procedure rather than judgment and wisdom.

I like what we have a lot better, even on the days when I feel
obligated to seem to be the voice of obnoxious opposition. 

        john




------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:48:47 -0700
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman at Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-hutzler-spamops (Email Submission:
	Access and Accountability) to BCP
To: ietf at ietf.org
Message-ID: <8DE229A88A44751115E8AF86 at [10.1.110.5]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii

My last call comment as a technical contributor (apologies for the
lateness):

Overall, this is a very important document which I support.

I'm not fond of the current title because I believe it will cause the
document 
to be ignored by the people who most need to read it.  I suggest:

   "Operational Requirements for Email Submission"

The best way to improve this document otherwise would be by deleting text
from 
the document and trimming it down to just the best practice requirements and

recommendations.  Move the descriptive text about architecture and how the 
email system works somewhere else (e.g. Dave's email architecture document).

Operators will run MSAs on port 25 if they need to, so it's unnecessary to
make 
a normative recommendation about that.  At some point it may cease to be
useful 
to run an MSA on port 25 so requiring an update to this document when that 
happens is short-sighted.

                - Chris

The IESG wrote on 6/6/07 10:32 -0400:

> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
>
> - 'Email Submission: Access and Accountability '
>    <draft-hutzler-spamops-07.txt> as a BCP
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-06-20. Exceptionally,
> comments may be sent to iesg at ietf.org instead. In either case, please
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Note that this is a second run of the Last Call. The first Last Call
> happened in 2005, and the current version tried to address all the
> comments received then. Taking into account the amount of time since the
> first Last Call the Area Director and the editors decided to run again a
> two weeks Last Call.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hutzler-spamops-07.txt
>
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=1167
3
> &rfc_flag=0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>







------------------------------

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


End of Ietf Digest, Vol 38, Issue 40
************************************



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