Re: Experimental makes sense for tls-authz

[Andrew Newton <andy at hxr.us>]

On Oct 27, 2007, at 11:00 AM, David Morris wrote:
> Well for starters, the drive-by hummers have to sit through the  
> session
> and be present for the discussion (note I intentionally did not say
> listen). They have to demonstrate enough interest in the IETF  
> process to
> actually pay the costs of attending the session.

Most of the drive-by hummers have their head buried in their email or  
other laptop work, so the expense they run for looking up to hum once  
or twice isn't at all onerous.  At least in this case, the drive-by  
emailers had to spend some thought cycles on the email they composed.

Just because somebody is present at an IETF meeting to truly  
participate in working group A, doesn't mean they've invested much to  
casually swing by working group B and be a drive-by hummer.

> And under IETF process,
> concensus isn't determined in a F2F meeting.

There is much lip-service about this, but in practice F2F meetings  
are given more importance in the deciding factors of the IETF.

> The IETF is supposed to be fostering the engineering of the Internet.
> Refusing to foster the engineering process based on religious or  
> political
> or even phantom economic concerns doesn't foster better operation  
> of the
> Internet.

I agree with you in that these factors should not outweigh technical  
considerations.  But the IETF should also not operate in a vacuum.   
That's the fastest way to irrelevance.

> It is in the greater interest of the Internet to have ANY protocol  
> used to
> define the meaning of some bits on the wires of the Internet well
> documented. At least three reasons come to mind .. a) I can better
> understand the impact of the protocol on other traffic and perhaps  
> even
> document issues to the originator of the traffic if what I observe  
> doesn't
> agree with the documentation AND seems to be causing my organization a
> problem. b) Better to know about a documented patent claim than to  
> have it
> hidden and waiting to bite me when I re-invent it, etc. c) Folks  
> concerned
> about security vulnerabilities have starting point for their analysis

These are all excellent points, but looking over this draft it is not  
obvious that there is a documented patent claim.  I have to get to  
the boilerplate at the end, follow a link and do a bit of searching.   
Perhaps the IETF ought to consider a Known IPR Claims Section in  
drafts/RFCs.

BTW, could a ToC be added to this doc before publication?

-andy

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