IETF general discussion

SM | 20 Jun 2012 17:39

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

Hi Abdussalam,
At 03:51 20-06-2012, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
>  I refere to the IETF process of: preparing the I-D by WG,
>Community-accepting, Submitting, and IESG-approval. The new
>Tao-update-process of the draft is not including the community. The
>IETF process in draft is as : individual preparing, individual submit
>to Editor, Editor decides and accepts, Editor submitting, and
>IESG-approval.
>
>The above are two different IETF submission streams, which may be
>consistent if we include *the community* in accepting submission to
>IESG.

RFC 4844 discusses about RFC Series and the streams used by the 
various communities to publish a RFC.  One of those streams is for 
IETF Documents.  In the I-D being discussed, the document will be 
published on a web page.  The IESG will choose Paul Hoffman as the 
editor.  I gather that those details are not a problem.

draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02 mentions that the changes will be 
discussed on an open, Tao-specific mailing list.  The second 
paragraph of Section 2 and the third paragraph are not so clear about 
changes, i.e. the editor accepts proposed changes and the IESG 
accepts proposed changes.  Are you suggesting that the changes should 
be discussed in a Working Group or something else?

BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete.

Regards,
-sm

(Continue reading)

Paul Hoffman | 20 Jun 2012 18:25

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

On Jun 20, 2012, at 8:39 AM, SM wrote:

> RFC 4844 discusses about RFC Series and the streams used by the various communities to publish a RFC.  One of
those streams is for IETF Documents.  In the I-D being discussed, the document will be published on a web
page.  The IESG will choose Paul Hoffman as the editor.  I gather that those details are not a problem.

Errr, maybe. The IESG could easily choose someone else; many individuals in this community would be fine at
being the Tao editor. Remember, I was the third editor of the document.

> draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02 mentions that the changes will be discussed on an open,
Tao-specific mailing list.  The second paragraph of Section 2 and the third paragraph are not so clear
about changes, i.e. the editor accepts proposed changes and the IESG accepts proposed changes.  

Can you say what was "not so clear"? I absolutely want that bit to be clear. Proposed text is appreciated here.

> BTW, RFC 4677 should be moved to Historic instead of Obsolete.

Earlier versions of the Tao were made obsolete, not moved to Historic, so I thought it was most appropriate
to do that here as well. FWIW, the definition of "Historic" in RFC 2026 is for specifications, not
descriptive documents like the Tao.

--Paul Hoffman

SM | 20 Jun 2012 21:02

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

Hi Paul,
At 09:25 20-06-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>Errr, maybe. The IESG could easily choose someone else; many 
>individuals in this community would be fine at being the Tao editor. 
>Remember, I was the third editor of the document.

Yes. 

>Can you say what was "not so clear"? I absolutely want that bit to 
>be clear. Proposed text is appreciated here.

I would not put too many administrative details in a RFC as it will 
be read literally.  Here's  some suggested text which I'll leave to 
author discretion:

    The Tao will be edited by one person who is chosen by the IESG.
    The changes can be discussed on the tao-discuss <at> ietf.org mailing list.
    The editor submits the revised version of the Tao to the IESG for approval.
    The revised version is published by the IETF Secretariat at
    <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.

What was not clear is the how changes make it into the 
document.  Instead of using two steps, you could keep the URL above 
as the stable one and use your discretion for the editing part.  I 
removed the tao-possible-revision.html as "we" do not want to see a 
RFP where the IETF gets billed for such work.    The editor can 
work out some details such as automatically picking changes from SVN 
and pushing it to some work-in-progress web page with the IETF 
Secretariat.  I did not mention "community" in the above.  Feel free 
to add that.  There is some overhead in the above.  As people will

(Continue reading)

Thomas Nadeau | 28 Jun 2012 20:23

bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking wares at an IETF meeting?


	Has the IETF morphed into a conference/convention?

http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/bits-n-bites.html

Russ Housley | 28 Jun 2012 20:40

Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking wares at an IETF meeting?

There was a long discussion about this event prior to it being scheduled.  Sorry you missed that discussion.

We will have a discussion after the event to determine if we should do it again.

Russ

On Jun 28, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:

> 
> 	Has the IETF morphed into a conference/convention?
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/84/bits-n-bites.html
> 
>

Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich | 4 Jul 2012 11:34

RE: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking wares at anIETF meeting?

Hi Russ, All,

was there also a discussion on the contribution?
$10**4 for two hours chat with potential customers does not look very
motivating.
As this is an experiment I would actually start with less obstacles and
see how it evolves.

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
Of ext Russ
> Housley
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:41 PM
> To: Thomas Nadeau
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking
wares at anIETF
> meeting?
> 
> There was a long discussion about this event prior to it being
scheduled.  Sorry you
> missed that discussion.
> 
> We will have a discussion after the event to determine if we should do
it again.
> 
> Russ

(Continue reading)

Russ Housley | 4 Jul 2012 15:52

Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking wares at anIETF meeting?

Mehmet:

This is the price that NANOG charges for a table at their Beer-n-Gear event.  I think that access to the IETF
community is worth roughly the same price.  We can reevaluate the price once there is feedback on the
experiment.  It might go up,  It might go down.

Russ

On Jul 4, 2012, at 5:34 AM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:

> Hi Russ, All,
> 
> was there also a discussion on the contribution?
> $10**4 for two hours chat with potential customers does not look very
> motivating.
> As this is an experiment I would actually start with less obstacles and
> see how it evolves.
> 
> Cheers, 
> Mehmet 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf-bounces <at> ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of ext Russ
>> Housley
>> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:41 PM
>> To: Thomas Nadeau
>> Cc: IETF discussion list
>> Subject: Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking

(Continue reading)

Joel jaeggli | 4 Jul 2012 16:01

Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking wares at anIETF meeting?

On 7/4/12 06:52 , Russ Housley wrote:
> Mehmet:
> 
> This is the price that NANOG charges for a table at their Beer-n-Gear
> event.  I think that access to the IETF community is worth roughly
> the same price.  We can reevaluate the price once there is feedback
> on the experiment.  It might go up,  It might go down.

NANOG is around 500 attendees. I daresay exposure to the average nanog
attendee is worth more, but ultimately the best feedback in that regard
will likely come from the sponsors.

> Russ
> 
> 
> On Jul 4, 2012, at 5:34 AM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> 
>> Hi Russ, All,
>> 
>> was there also a discussion on the contribution? $10**4 for two
>> hours chat with potential customers does not look very motivating. 
>> As this is an experiment I would actually start with less obstacles
>> and see how it evolves.
>> 
>> Cheers, Mehmet
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces <at> ietf.org
>>> [mailto:ietf-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of ext Russ

(Continue reading)

John Levine | 4 Jul 2012 20:49

Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking wares at anIETF meeting?

>NANOG is around 500 attendees. I daresay exposure to the average nanog
>attendee is worth more, but ultimately the best feedback in that regard
>will likely come from the sponsors.

IETF is bigger, but on the other hand, IETF attendees probably spend
less per capita on equipment than NANOGers do.

It's an experiment, if we're turning away sponsors and people think it
was overall a success, we can raise the price.  If not, well, we can
do something else.

R's,
John

joel jaeggli | 4 Jul 2012 23:00

Re: bits-n-bites: Exhibitors and product vendors hawking wares at anIETF meeting?

On 7/4/12 11:49 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> NANOG is around 500 attendees. I daresay exposure to the average nanog
>> attendee is worth more, but ultimately the best feedback in that regard
>> will likely come from the sponsors.
> IETF is bigger, but on the other hand, IETF attendees probably spend
> less per capita on equipment than NANOGers do.
Yeah, that's what I said. ;)

If pitched correctly the folks that would be interested in the IETF 
community might not be equipment vendors. e.g. I* organizations, 
standards bodies doing outreach, contractors that provider services to 
organziations doing standards works, patent trolls with portfolios to 
sell and regular participants looking to rasie the visibility of their 
activities all seem like potential participants.
> It's an experiment, if we're turning away sponsors and people think it
> was overall a success, we can raise the price.  If not, well, we can
> do something else.
Indeed. A lot of things I might not be willing to support in the general 
case are fine in the guise of experiments.
> R's,
> John
>

Abdussalam Baryun | 21 Jun 2012 11:16

Picon

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

Hi SM,

I thank you for your comments and input,

The I-D being discussed (draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02), does
mention the discussion on a list, but it does not mention the
community or consensus. The point of this I-D is to make the process
easier and valuable for users and memebrs, so I don't suggest to make
such discussion on the list mandatory for this webpage process.

> RFC 4844 discusses about RFC Series and the streams used by the
> various communities to publish a RFC.  One of those streams is for
> IETF Documents.

Please note that the milestone/aim of the I-D and the webpage is to
produce a RFC in the end of its progress. I think the webpage is a
IETF document published and edited differently than IETF-drafts. So
RFC4844 should be considered. Furthermore the I-D avoids to reference
or mention IETF procedure documents (mentions obslete documents), I
don't know why?

>  In the I-D being discussed, the document will be
> published on a web page.  The IESG will choose Paul Hoffman as the
> editor.  I gather that those details are not a problem.

The problem is not choosing editor, but the webpage process. The Tao
webpage is a document but the question was is this document an IETF
document or a non-IETF document. Under the procedure IETF-documents
have a process. The <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02> draft has a
different process even though it is an IETF-document. The draft if

(Continue reading)

Abdussalam Baryun | 21 Jun 2012 12:34

Picon

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

Hi All

Discussing the draft <draft-hoffman-tao-as-web-page-02>

>Can you say what was "not so clear"? I absolutely want that bit to be clear. Proposed text is appreciated here.

-Why the document/draft does not mention/reference other descriptive
related works?

-Why the document/draft obsoletes RFC4677, is there a big reason?

-Why is the document/draft not clear of its aim, objectives,
sub-process-periods, and update-announcement-procedure?

In the introduction>
[This document contains the procedure agreed to by the IESG. The Tao
has traditionally been an IETF consensus document,..]
-Why the document/draft in section 2 does not mention consesus while
mentioned in introduction.

-Why the document/draft does not include section about the Tao-list
and this discussion method and purposes.

-Why the document/draft has one section after the introduction,
avoiding important sections like in RFC2418 (WG procedures) or as:
       a) Roles of Tao-webpage update.
       b) Roles of Individual submission to Editor.
       c) The community input to the webpage.
       d) What is the Editor criteria of accepting and refusing such updates.

(Continue reading)

Melinda Shore | 21 Jun 2012 22:02

Picon

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

On 6/21/12 1:16 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> I think that discussions should be limited times (in hours or few
> days) which I prefer to take place in the IETF meetings and getting a
> community consesus on the updates of the webpage.

Hi: if you're concerned about and familiar with community process
then surely you're aware that work is progressed and decisions made
on mailing lists - right?

Melinda

Russ Housley | 21 Jun 2012 23:08

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

This URL <http://www.ietf.org/tao> will bring up the current document.  It works exactly the same as <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.

This means that <http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive> cannot be used as suggested on this thread.

I propose the following URLs for the Tao:

   - current Tao: <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>

   - draft Tao: <http://www.ietf.org/tao-possible-revision.html>

   - archive entries: <http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive/tao-YYYYMMDD.html>

Russ

Julian Reschke | 4 Jul 2012 16:49

Picon

Picon

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

On 2012-06-21 23:08, Russ Housley wrote:
> This URL <http://www.ietf.org/tao> will bring up the current document.  It works exactly the same as <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.
>
> This means that <http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive> cannot be used as suggested on this thread.
 > ...

Sorry?

Russ Housley | 4 Jul 2012 16:52

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

Julian:

Do you object to http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive for the old version of the Tao?

Russ

On Jul 4, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2012-06-21 23:08, Russ Housley wrote:
>> This URL <http://www.ietf.org/tao> will bring up the current document.  It works exactly the same as <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>.
>> 
>> This means that <http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive> cannot be used as suggested on this thread.
> > ...
> 
> Sorry?

Julian Reschke | 4 Jul 2012 17:59

Picon

Picon

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

On 2012-07-04 16:52, Russ Housley wrote:
> Julian:
>
> Do you object to http://www.ietf.org/tao-archive for the old version of the Tao?
>
> Russ

No, I was just trying to understand *why* the archive can't be at 
<http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive>.

Best regards, Julian

Russ Housley | 4 Jul 2012 19:54

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

Julian:

> No, I was just trying to understand *why* the archive can't be at <http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive>.

I was told that we cannot have http://www.ietf.org/tao directed to the document and also be the directory
containing the archive directory.

Russ

Tony Hansen | 6 Jul 2012 21:28

Picon

Re: Comments for <I-D of Publishing the "Tao of the IETF" as a Web Page>

Huh?
Make tao a directory.
Put the document in the directory as index.html.
Now www.ietf.org/tao will redirect to www.ietf.org/tao/ will redirect to 
www.ietf.org/tao/index.html.

     Tony Hansen

On 7/4/2012 1:54 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
> Julian:
>
>> No, I was just trying to understand *why* the archive can't be at <http://www.ietf.org/tao/archive>.
> I was told that we cannot have http://www.ietf.org/tao directed to the document and also be the directory
containing the archive directory.
>
> Russ

Return

Return to gmane.ietf.general.

Search Archive

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: Threads only / Showing only 20 lines / Not hiding cited text.
Change to All messages, whole messages, or hide cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane