Subject: USEFOR last call, point of order

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:19:38 -0400

Harald,

I expect a chair to be somewhat of a cheerleader and
have an interest in moving things forward.

But the chair should be impartial when complying with
release procedures.  Good executive decisions at the level
of the IESG can only be made based on accurate assessments,
and "spin" is not acceptable.

I think your submission to the IESG requesting last call
was biased.  Can you explain?

1. I disagree with the idea that it should be published in the event the
WG closes.  If a WG closes, it is because procedures were not
being followed.  Why is it reasonable to assume work products that
resulted from a flawed process should be accepted?  I would think an
explicit justification should be presented.

2. There have to be interoperating implementations before it can be 
standardized, and it should be clearer that there aren't even experimental 
implementations for some of it.  I am not sure that even bare requirements
for submitting for last call are met here.  That was not clear in your
submission.

3. I think the "nobody threatened to appeal" is a hope, not a statement
of the risk that someone appeals.  You never asked in the group.  Did you
ask anyone else?  Especially when so many good reviewers left the group?

4. You claimed "rough consensus."  Is there a reason that the actual poll 
results 6/10 were not made clear?   There is a 2/7 reject/reviewer ratio 
discernable in the last paragraph, but not stated as a ratio.  Are
IESG executives aware of the controversies and opinions?  Are they aware
there are so few participants in the poll and that the chairs and editors
were part of those counted?

5. I think the IESG should be made aware that the USEPRO editor is
on record as saying that USEFOR is not ready until USEPRO is, and
that USEPRO is not close.  The IESG should be aware of your previous
predictions of schedule and milestones.  (See my previous e-mail.)
And what that means for a range of when USEPRO can be expected to be
completed, and with how many participants.

I am not that involved with the IETF standards process, so I don't
know which of the above warrant comment to higher levels.

Thank you.

Forrest

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:36:17 +0200

> explicit justification should be presented.
If the group is closed, the biggest contributing factor I see for making 
such a decision is lack of interest. Why do you assume that it has to be 
caused by lack of interest?
> standardized, and it should be clearer that there aren't even 
> experimental implementations for some of it.  I am not sure that even 
> bare requirements
There has to be interoperating implementations before it can be advanced 
to Draft Standard. This call is for Proposed Standard. Your 
interpretation of the IETF standards track is erroneous.
> ask anyone else?  Especially when so many good reviewers left the group?
Nobody's threatened to appeal in any message I've seen on the list.
I trust that people who want to appeal are capable of making their own 
threats.
>
> 4. You claimed "rough consensus."  Is there a reason that the actual 
> poll results 6/10 were not made clear?   There is a 2/7 
> reject/reviewer ratio discernable in the last paragraph, but not 
> stated as a ratio.  Are
The writeup should make it quite clear that there are very few people 
left in the group. I do not agree that 6/10 is a correct counting.
> completed, and with how many participants.
The IESG is quite capable of noticing that the group's spent nine years 
without producing anything, and that I've taken at least one year longer 
than I first expected to get the first document out the door. That's a 
cause for pessimism for the next document, and the ADs are aware of this.
WRT the USEFOR/USEPRO linkage, the group consensus was not to hold it 
back; the IETF rules give no special weight to the opinion of an editor 
of another document.
> know which of the above warrant comment to higher levels.
In my opinion: None.
Your mileage may vary; the IETF process allows anyone to state any 
opinion to anyone.

                               Harald

---

From: [email-masked] (Ralph Babel)
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 21:41:13 +0200 (CEST)

Forrest J. Cavalier III wrote:

> release procedures. Good executive decisions at the
> level of the IESG can only be made based on accurate
> assessments, and "spin" is not acceptable.

Just for the record: I'm with Forrest.

Too many contributors have left the WG; nonetheless, the
number of reported inconsistencies in the draft remains
constant. This "last call" looks more like the chair being
tired of the lack of progress (and the draft _is_ far from
acceptable), but not feeling like shutting down the WG as
announced originally as part of the milestone schedule.

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:54:17 -0700 (PDT)

> was biased.  Can you explain?

I would suggest you familiarize yourself with IETF processes a bit more before
making comments of this sort. Just as one point, the last call process is
started by the relevant area director (in this case Lisa Dusseault), not by the
WG chair. The fact that the process has begun means the relevant area director
is comfortable that the necessary procedures have been followed.

This doesn't mean the document is ready to become an RFC. That's what the last
call is for: To determine whether or not it is ready.

> being followed.

I'm actually having a hard time coming up with a case where a WG was shut down
due to procedures not being followed. Since the chair is responsible for
procedural issues the usual remedy in such cases is to replace the chair.

The usual reason for shutting down WGs is when they are completely out in the
weeds or there's clearly no chance of the group reaching closure.

It is also worth noting that approval of a WG changes document handling
somewhat but has never been a publication requirement in the IETF. There have
been plenty of cases where a WG failed but some of the WG products made it to
some form of RFC. There have also been a huge number of cases where non-WG
documents became RFCs.

> Why is it reasonable to assume work products that
> resulted from a flawed process should be accepted?

But why would it be unreasonable? Given that the members of WGs are human,
there are almost always minor process flaws if you look hard enough.

Specifications should succeed or fail on their own merits. Of course there are
some sorts of egregious process failures that would merit an objection during
last call or even an appeal, but failures to dot i's or cross t's do not rise
to this level. IMO nothing you have pointed out rises to the necessary level.

In any case, while procedural issues are in order, you are far more likely  to
get traction by making cogent technical arguments at this point.

>  I would think an explicit justification should be presented.

I know of no basis for calling for such a thing.

> implementations for some of it.

I'm sorry, but this is simply not the case. Interoperability requirements apply
to the move from proposed to draft, not the move to proposed. (There are some
exceptions to this for things like routing protocols but none that apply here.)

>  I am not sure that even bare requirements

The bare requirements for last call are just that: Pretty bare.

> ask anyone else?  Especially when so many good reviewers left the group?

And the main reason why we have an IETF-wide last call is so the document can
receive wider review. I find it more than a little curious that you would
object to an action whose main goal is wider review by claiming that the
capacity for good review no longer exists in the group. If anything this is an
argument for a last call, not against one. 

> were part of those counted?

Only the AD can answer this, but having been an AD myself I'd be enormously
surprised if she isn't aware in detail of what has gone on.

> completed, and with how many participants.

WGs that are way past their milestone dates are never in short supply in the
IETF. Just picking another group at random, I note that all open OPENPGP
milestones have dates in 2001. I recall noting one group some time back that
was almost seven years past any of their dates. In any case, if all WGs that
have missed milestones were shut down there wouldn't be very many groups left.

Harald is actually more of a stickler for milestones and whatnot than most, so
I'm a bit surprised USEFOR dates have not been updated. I personally think the
utility of these tools in a volunteer organization like the IETF is marginal at
best.

> know which of the above warrant comment to higher levels.

Unless things have changed dramatically since my time on the IESG the relevant
AD reads this list, so your comments have probably been seen. Nevertheless, you
can and should send comments directly to the ADs, the IESG, or to the main IETF
list.

My suggestion, however, is that the better course of action given that the last
call has begun is to comment on technical issues in the document itself rather
than the process that has gotten us to this point.

				Ned

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:44:20 -0400

I really appreciate your detailed response.

> than the process that has gotten us to this point.

1. It is my opinion that most of the technical issues in USEFOR are going to 
remain hidden until the discussions start on USEPRO, and implementations start
to be written.  Raising a significant formal objection now is going to be pretty 
difficult, since USEFOR is a document format, not a protocol. Risk of harm only 
arises through activity, not format specifications alone.

2. If this were the last and final WG document out the door, rather than the 
simplest and least contentious of 3 proposed documents, then I would agree that 
process discussions would be pointless: everything would be done. But we have 
90% of the work left to do.

3. It seems that missing a milestone by a year or many years is not rare in WGs.
But missing this prediction by a year, something like 5 times as many months as 
Harald first predicted, and then predicting that the next and more complicated 
work product will be complete in a year using the same process does not inspire 
confidence and trust.

4. It seems process is not a grounds for appeal, and a discussion about process 
is off-topic. If everyone thinks this WG is working well, then carry on.  The 
rest of the software development world has discovered that process explains results.

Thank you again, Ned and Harald, for replying.

Forrest

---

From: Russ Allbery <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:23:10 -0700

Forrest J Cavalier <[email-masked]> writes:

> 4. It seems process is not a grounds for appeal, and a discussion about
> process is off-topic. If everyone thinks this WG is working well, then
> carry on.  The rest of the software development world has discovered
> that process explains results.

I don't think the WG is working well.  I do, however, think that the
current USEFOR draft is superior to RFC 1036 as guidance for implementors
on Usenet today, and I think it's silly to have a superior document be
left in semi-permanent limbo the way that Son-of was.  So when weighing
the decision of whether to publish or not publish USEFOR, separate from
the questions of whether or not we're likely to accomplish all of our
goals, it seems to me that it's better for the general community to
publish it.

As for continued work, well, I'm willing to keep working provided that
people are still reviewing and we seem to be converging on something
useful.  I think we mostly did that with USEFOR.  Whether we can do that
with USEPRO is very iffy, but we haven't really tried yet, and I don't
want to give up without even trying.

It's worth pointing out that the NNTP working group also went on for many
years past its deadlines and only finally made progress when the WG was
down to about five active members, and yet I'm extremely pleased with the
documents we produced and which are about to become RFCs.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([email-masked])             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:17:09 -0700

Thanks for your input on the suitability of this draft for  
publication -- IETF last call is a fine time for this input, as Ned  
explained.  However, note that at this point I'm most interested in  
seeing justified arguments that the document in last-call now is  
*worse* than what it is replacing.  If the usefor-usefor draft is a  
higher-quality document, even if it's not perfect, the low WG size/ 
energy suggests to me that it should replace the older document  
rather than continue getting slowly and contentiously polished.

By the way, I found this to be a well-written doc when I did my own  
read last week. Without being a netnews implementor I can't  
necessarily find all inconsistencies but I did find the text  
generally clear and well-organized.  I have thought about some of the  
reported unaddressed inconsistencies brought up on this list, and did  
not identify any as being big/bad enough to adversely affect  
interoperability.  I have been reading everything that goes by on the  
list (though I haven't consulted the tracking system) since March of  
this year.

The publication of a new Proposed Standard document on the Netnews  
article format should not be considered the last word ever on the  
topic.  If somebody found the energy to revise the document further  
some day, and found support for that work, it could happen.   
Improving a standard is generally possible; perfecting it is not.

Lisa

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 10:40:29 GMT

>arises through activity, not format specifications alone.

Then your proper course of action is to recommend to the IESG that they
decline to publish it until they see USEPRO (that is also my own view, but
I accept that the consensus was against me).

But you have given no cogent reason for absolute rejection of the
document.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: "Forrest J. Cavalier III" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:38:39 -0400

> But you have given no cogent reason for absolute rejection of the

It was the third way I was searching for.  Discuss the process.  Discuss how 
USEFOR came to be submitted for last call, and if that was proper.  Discuss how 
soon the clean up to USEFOR (that USEPRO will cause) will happen.

I agree that "Perfect draft" is unreasonable.  But there is a continuum of
imperfection. We have a disagreement in the WG about how ready the document is.
That disagreement was NOT apparent or highlighted by the submission from Alexey.

The IESG gives no more weight to the USEPRO editor's view than others, which
is weird, considering how USEFOR came to be a piece split off from a larger
work, and the significant interdependencies between them.  If USEFOR were a 
strict documentation of existing practice, my opinion would be different.

So, Charles is correct that I have given no reason for absolute rejection of the 
document.  I don't think it should be absolutely rejected.  I agree it is an 
improvement over those parts of previous standards.  And that is what the IESG 
is looking for: some improvement.  That's a pretty low bar.  If "minimal 
improvement over 1036" was the bar of acceptance, then we could have submitted 
long, long, long ago. We could have used Son-Of-1036. But that was NOT the charter.

If that is the bar, then no Format standard that proposes new features can be 
appealed.  Is that what the IESG rules intend?  If one were to try to appeal to 
the IESG to reject USEFOR now, most likely it would be based on something that 
USEPRO draft says now.  (As I said, activities create risk, not mere format 
specifications.)  But an appeal on that basis would be dismissed by saying 
"Well, USEPRO is just a draft, we can fix it in USEPRO."  Saying that it is 
fixable in USEPRO is pure hubris, (some format flaws cannot be overcome by 
protocol.) Saying that USEPRO will be fixed in any particular time frame is not 
supported by the track record of this WG.

Isn't there a third way?  Apparently not.

I predict the end result of all this will be is a confusing set of conflicting 
or incomplete standards issued from a single WG, and no one left interested in 
cleaning it up.  The people who can act to prevent that are the chair and the AD.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:08:02 +0200

Russ Allbery wrote:
 
> the current USEFOR draft is superior to RFC 1036 as guidance for
> implementors on Usenet today, and I think it's silly to have a superior
> document be left in semi-permanent limbo the way that Son-of was.
[...]
> it seems to me that it's better for the general community to publish it

+1

> I'm willing to keep working provided that people are still reviewing
> and we seem to be converging on something useful.  I think we mostly
> did that with USEFOR.  Whether we can do that with USEPRO is very iffy,
> but we haven't really tried yet, and I don't want to give up without
> even trying.

+1.  Getting it right for USEPRO based on Usefor-10 is IMO possible, we
have a clean data structure (= usefor, the format), and most procedures
(= usepro) on this data should be obvious.  Nothing radical, maybe some
controversies about MUST vs. SHOULD wrt new implementations, there's no
showstopper in sight from my POV.  I hope that the s-o-1036 parts about
gateways will be integrated into USEPRO (and IIRC that was already okay
in all USEPRO drafts):  Above all avoid loops.

Frank