Subject: WG Last Call on the LDAPv3 Directory Replication I-D

From: "John Strassner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:20:46 -0800

LDUPers,

The purpose of this message is to initiate the LDAPEXT
working group last call on the LDAPv3 Directory Replication
Requirements I-D document.

WHAT DOCUMENT?

The document in last call is:

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
         draft-ietf-ldup-replica-req-06.txt

WHAT IS A LAST CALL FOR?

The purpose of the working group last call is to ensure
that the working group has reached consensus on the
document, believes that all the known outstanding issues
have been addressed, and is ready to put the document
forward for proposed standard status.

During the last call, any comments on the documents are
collected and discussed on the mailing list.

HOW LONG DOES IT LAST?

The last call starts today and will last approximately two
weeks. It will end on Tuesday, February 20, 2001.

WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP?

After the last call completes, there are three possible
outcomes:

1) No changes are required and we request our ADs to put
   forward the documents to the IESG for informational
   status.

2) Minor changes agreed to on the list are required, and
   the documents are revised. We then ask our ADs to put
   forward the revised documents to the IESG for
   informational status.

3) Major issues are raised and no consensus is reached on
   the list. In this case, we slink back and discuss
   things until consensus is reached, at which time another
   working group last call will be issued.

Assuming we achieve outcome 1) or 2), and that the ADs
agree with our assessment, the next stop for the documents
is with the IESG. The IESG reads them and may approve the
documents (with or without changes), or send the documents
back to the working group to have major issues addressed.

If the first outcome happens, the documents are put forward
for a two-week last call to the entire IETF, and after
successful completion the documents are published as RFCs
with proposed standard status.

If the second outcome happens, we go back and address
the issues, putting the documents forward again when we
believe they're ready.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

You should read the documents, making sure that 1) there
are no problems or deficiencies or outstanding issues that
need to be resolved; and 2) that there are no typos,
formatting problems, grammatical errors, etc.

Any substantive problems you find, you should send to the
list. Any minor problems (typos, etc.) you may send to the
list or just to the authors. If, for some reason, you have
comments you don't want to send to the entire list, you may
send them to me or my co-chair Chris Apple.

Silence means consent.

Read, enjoy, and send your comments in!

regards,
John Strassner and Chris Apple

---

From: "Albert Langer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:47:23 +1100

[John and Chris]
Silence means consent.

regards,

[Albert]
Could you please explain why a revised WG charter dated 10 February 2001 was
posted to:

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ldup-charter.html

with revised dates some of which expired the previous month, and with a
schedule to
adopt URP as a "proposed standard" 3 months prior to finalizing the
architecture
and information model?

I objected formally to both those aspects:

http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/msg00784.html

I have checked the archives and am not aware of any response to those
objections from the WG co-chairs or any attempt to seek a consensus from the
WG about them nor even any announcement to the WG that a consensus has in
fact been reached.

There were also some other comments and questions from Timothy Hahn:

http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/msg00791.html

These included at least one minor editorial correction (typo) which I cannot
imagine anybody would have taken exception to. Therefore I am inclined to
assume the document was simply posted "as is" without bothering to consider
any comments made on it, despite having asked for comments.

Was that the case?

Who took the decision, and why were we not informed?

---

From: John Strassner <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:16:12 -0800

Albert,

I posted the revised charter for discussion for this group. You were the 
only person that made a comment. If you would be so kind as to actually 
read the charter, you'll find that your complaint of having LDUP appoint 
two liaisons was dropped from the charter. As far as your complaint:

[revision] Jan 01 LDAPv3 Directory Replication Requirements I-D goes to WG 
Last Call as Informational. Jan 01 LDAPv3 Update Reconciliation Procedures 
I-D goes to WG Last Call as Proposed Standard.
[Albert] I do not think it is appropriate to issue new deadlines that have 
already passed.

I would point out that Jan 01 means by the end of January, not 1 January. 
We did successfully meet the first objective. We didn't meet the second 
objective because we had some comments on the requirements draft, and I 
felt uncomfortable issuing URP for last call until we had passed last call 
for the requirements draft.

You objected that you haven't seen any mailing list activity on the drafts 
from the new authors. The minutes simply said that the new authors would 
write these drafts and make every effort to get them posted in the 
repository before the next cut-off date. It didn't say that we had to 
discuss a draft that hadn't been written yet.

As far as your unprofessional remark about URP, you are the only person 
objecting to it.

Therefore, in the face of only one objection, and considering that we did 
discuss charter updates at the WG meeting, there was clear consent of the 
working group for adopting this new charter. The charter was so adopted. I 
didn't issue a note to the working group because I was, and still am, ON 
VACATION. I will now issue such a note, even though I am still ON VACATION.

As far as Tim's message, I simply did not see it. Thanks for the link, I'll 
take a look at it, and we can discuss the changes on the list next week, 
when I'm back from vacation.

John

---

From: "Albert Langer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 10:59:38 +1100

[John]
I posted the revised charter for discussion for this group. You were the
only person that made a comment. If you would be so kind as to actually
read the charter, you'll find that your complaint of having LDUP appoint
two liaisons was dropped from the charter.

[Albert]
Thank you for your prompt response.

I made no complaint about LDUP appointing two liaisons. I simply asked the
the following question:

***
[revision]
The LDUP WG Chairs will assign one or two persons to be official
LDUP WG liasons to ITU, to monitor X.500 replication work in the ITU,
and to coordinate the work of the LDUP WG with similar work in ITU.

[Albert]
My understanding is that X.500 dropped the URP proposals for
multi-master as a work item.

Who is or are the liaisons and what coordination has been or
is being done?
***

I did not notice that the charter had been amended to remove all reference
to appointing liasons, thank you for drawing that to my attention.

Rather than having to do a diff to discover such changes I would
expect to know about them because they would have been put to and discussed
in the WG email list. There was no mention of any such change in the only
document you put to the WG.

It appears that instead of answering my question, someone, perhaps you, has
taken a decision not to have liason with the ITU to monitor X.500
replication
work in the ITU and to coordinate the work of the LDUP WG with similar work
in the ITU.

Surely decisions about liasons between standards bodies require some degree
of formality.

Who took that decision, why and why was the WG not asked for an opinion
about it?

Since you appear to have misunderstood my question as a complaint, I will
volunteer
my opinion despite not having been asked for it. I believe it is important
that
there *should* be active liason with X.500 replication work and the reasons
for
URP being dropped as a work item there should be studied and thought about
here.

Be that as it may, revision of the WG charter to remove a commitment to
establish
a liason is not something that should be done in response to a single
comment,
whether correctly understood or not. It should have been, and should now be,
put to the WG formally.

[John]
As far as your complaint:

[Albert]
Thank you. I had not understood that 01 referred to 2001 in my original
comments
although I understood after seeing Timothy Hahn's reference to this.

Nevertheless, the WG Final call was issued on 5 February and the revised
charter was subsequently issued on 10 February after 2 of the dates
had already expired, as I originally stated.

[John]

[Albert]
Certainly issuing the final call within a few days of the end of the month
successfully meets the objective (indeed something of a record as far as
LDUP schedules are concerned). My point however was simply that a revised
charter should not specify delivery dates that have already passed, which
is precisely what you did.

[John]

[Albert]
The minutes did not say we should discuss a draft that has not been written
yet and as I pointed out, and you seem to be confirming, they did not say
that
anybody had committed to producing such a draft by the end of March.

The revised charter does say that LDUP is committed to produce a draft
by March 2001. My point was that under the circumstances it could be
unrealistic to
commit to a schedule of March 2001 for an I-D. Do you believe it is a
realistic
schedule? Or do you believe the schedule in a charter does not involve any
sort
of commitment?

[John]

Therefore, in the face of only one objection, and considering that we did
discuss charter updates at the WG meeting, there was clear consent of the
working group for adopting this new charter. The charter was so adopted.

[Albert]
I made only two references to URP, the one quoted above, and the following:

***
[revision]
Apr 01 LDAPv3 Replication Information Model I-D goes to WG
Last Call as Proposed Standard.

Apr 01 LDAPv3 Replication Architecture I-D goes to WG Last
Call as Informational.

[...]
[Albert]
Propos[al] to finalize the Update Reconciliation Procedures
four months [actually 3 -AL] prior to finalizing the Information Model and
Architecture
lacks common sense.
***

If you genuinely considered either of those references to be
"unprofessional" I would have
expected some private email from you at the time.

I cannot even imagine what it is you now claim to be "unprofessional" about
either of
them, but since you have said so publicly, please either justify your
statement or
withdraw it.

If there is a consensus in the WG to finalize detailed protocols before
finalizing
architecture and information model then so be it. But the WG was originally
chartered
to decide on the architecture and information model before finalizing
protocol
details - for reasons that I believe are obvious, "common sense" and indeed
"professional".

Any such consensus to reverse the normal and previously agreed sequence
should be
established on the mailing list by asking the participants what they think.
Once an
objection has been raised a consensus cannot be assumed on the basis of
discussions
at an IETF meeting.

[John]
I didn't issue a note to the working group because I was, and still am, ON
VACATION. I will now issue such a note, even though I am still ON VACATION.

John

[Albert]
Thank you, that answers my concern that the document might have simply been
posted without bothering to look at the comments.

In future when you propose to take some formal action on behalf of the WG,
and you happen to be on vacation, could you please postpone it until you
are able to consult or at least inform the WG.

There is no need to take such actions while on vacation just as there is
no need to reply to this email while you are on vacation.

________________________________

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:58:00 -0800

>and to coordinate the work of the LDUP WG with similar work in ITU.

This is a hypothetical discussion as a WG doesn't appoint liasons. 
Because of some misunderstandings between the IESG and the IESG 
Secretariat, a wrong charter has been published, and it will be 
updated.

Also, Albert, note that the IETF follow the principle of rough 
consensus, and that a wg chair have the full responsibility and power 
of declaring such consensus. I must ask you to follow the decisions 
made in the wg following this principle, and only if you have very 
explicit objections that the decisions made were wrong, you can send 
in a formal appeal to the Area Director and/or the IESG.

I can not allow you to delay the work in the wg by being the only 
person working against consensus which is declared by the wg chair(s).

     paf

-- 
Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>       Internet Engineering Task Force
Area Director, Applications Area                   http://www.ietf.org
Phone: (Stockholm) +46-8-4494212            (San Jose) +1-408-525-0940
        PGP: 2DFC AAF6 16F0 F276 7843  2DC1 BC79 51D9 7D25 B8DC

---

From: "Albert Langer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:37:00 +1100

[Patrik]

http://www.imc.org/ietf-ldup/mail-archive/msg00822.html

[Albert]
A "thank you" for having drawn this to the WG's attention was not
necessary. It is quite sufficient that you have now indicated that
the wrong charter will be fixed as I requested.

However your remarks below were completely uncalled for,
and after having waited for more than my customary 24 hours and
thought about it carefully, I consider it necessary to reply sharply.

[Patrik]
Also, Albert, note that the IETF follow the principle of rough
consensus, and that a wg chair have the full responsibility and power
of declaring such consensus.

[Albert]
The liason with the ITU was removed from the WG charter without any
consensus "rough" or otherwise. Nor was any consensus "declared".

The only document shown to the WG included the paragraph you have now
agreed should not have been removed. It was removed unilaterally
without any consultation whatsoever.

No doubt that was an oversight, which has now been
corrected and does not require any further comment. Your remarks
below however are rather more serious.

[Patrik]
I must ask you to follow the decisions
made in the wg following this principle, and only if you have very
explicit objections that the decisions made were wrong, you can send
in a formal appeal to the Area Director and/or the IESG.

[Albert]
No decision was made in the WG about the matter you are responding to
- liason with the ITU. That is absolutely clear and has now been
corrected. I raised a very specific objection about it in the
proper place and at the proper time. It would have been quite wrong
to formally appeal to anybody without raising the issue first.

BTW the CC to you was because the message I was responding to was
CCed to you and I used "reply all" as usual. Likewise the CC list
now is for exactly the same reason - not because I am appealing to
anybody about anything. I am simply responding to your public
remarks to the same people you addressed them to.

[Patrik]

[Albert]
By admonishing me for raising the matter, you are actively discouraging
members of the WG (whether generally or just me is irrelevant), from quite
properly raising issues about matters they have explicitly been asked to
comment on, and asserting - absurdly - that WG chairs have "powers"
to simply "declare consensus" without asking anybody what they actually
think about what they propose to do - and indeed without even bothering
to tell them when they have done it.

Only the sheer absurdity of your accusation mitigates its outrageousness.
You could not possibly really intend to intimidate me or anyone else
from raising such issues, nor to encourage WG chairs to "declare consensus"
without telling anybody, or you would not have picked such a totally clear
cut, black and white case to shoot yourself in the foot.

What remains however, is that you are being gratuitously offensive.

If the cause of that is some other matter that you want to raise with me,
either publicly or privately, I suggest that you do so, rather than
making really ridiculous public accusations in an absurd context.

If you want me to take anything you do have to say seriously, I suggest
you do not respond immediately, but carefully review the sequence of
messages and take at least 24 hours to decide whether you ought to
withdraw your gratuitously offensive remarks.

Meanwhile, I hereby formally reject your admonishment. Whether you "allow"
it or not, I intend to continue carrying out my responsibility as a WG
participant to respond to formal requests for comment by stating my views.
That is not "working against consensus" - it is absolutely vital to the
mechanism by which consensus is determined. Attempting to silence people
who disagree with popular views is not "working for consensus" but
actively preventing it. If I am indeed "the only person" with a particular
view, that can quite obviously neither prevent the WG from reaching a
consensus nor delay its work. It would certainly be irresponsible for me
to refrain from expressing those views when asked for comment.

No consensus has been "declared" on any matter that I have commented on.
The WG is currently considering a "final call" on a document,
*after* which it is the responsibility (not "power") of WG chairs to
determine
whether a consensus exists.

In case the sniping I have been copping from you, Chris and John is related
to my having "held up" the requirements draft by objecting to a previous
final call on it, here's a reminder of the actual situation:

According to Chris (email 18 July 2000):

***
1) I've read it CAREFULLY and believe that its ready.
2) My co-chair has read it CAREFULLY and believes that its ready.
3) Active members of the Working Group who represent a majority of
the most prevalent players in the LDAP industry have read it CAREFULLY,
many, many times and believe that its ready.
4) Adding clarifications to the document such as adding an explicit
statement indicating that atomicity of operations will not be addressed
by LDUP can and should be handled DURING IETF Last Call. That's my
interpretation and position on how to handle comments like
this that are introduced after the WG last call window has elapsed.
5) If you believe that there are serious breeches in the requirements
having had adequate review and believe that it is directly related to
the way the WG processes are being managed by John and myself, you
should feel free to take that up directly with Patrik Faltstrom and Ned
Freed.

I can assure you that there is absolutely no chance I will ever agree
with you about whether or not the document is ready for IETF Last Call.
And since I'm co-chair and John agrees with me, the request we have
made of the Applications ADs for IESG Review prior to IETF Last Call
WILL proceed.
***

Your contribution at the time was as folows (email 20 July 200):

***
I think you have a plan, which for me looks like "discussions at the
next IETF" and "then close the box by approving the minutes".

I will see, as AD, that the box will close, and stay closed.
***

Needless to say the document wasn't ready and the "plan" was not carried
out. I wasn't at the IETF meeting a couple of weeks after that chest
thumping, and all I know of what happened is from the minutes. A quite
different result emerged. The document was largely re-written, with two
new authors added and is *much* better for it.

So don't accuse me of "delaying the work in the wg by being the only
person working against consensus which is declared by the wg chair(s)",
and don't be surprised that I am not inclined to simply take anybody's
opinion as to whether a document is ready on the basis of their
authority as a WG chair. You find out whether a consensus exists by
*asking*, not by thumping your chest.

The WG has also been informed of a proposal to change the charter and asked
whether anybody objected to that process being accelerated. I objected and
there has been no subsequent attempt to ascertain the opinions of the WG
on the matters I raised.

In particular the WG has not been asked whether they agree that the current
charter should be amended so that the URP protocol is finalized before the
architecture and information model is finalized, or whether they agree with
my objection or have some other view.

All that is needed is to simply *ask*. There may well be a consensus one way
or another, but not even the most omniscient WG chair could possibly find
out without asking.

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:36:03 -0800

>without any consultation whatsoever.

The charter can be changed by the IESG without any other consultation 
with the wg than information of the change being done. This 
information had not been sent to the wg, as the charter was not 
supposed to have been published until the new paragraph was 
constructed.

>to tell them when they have done it.

What obviously was unclear from my message was that I talked about 
two different issues:

(a) The fact that the discussion about liasons was not needed as IESG 
took decisions on what text should go in the charter

(b) The number of issues which the wg chair have declared being 
consensus in the wg -- and you still bring up the issues

>cut, black and white case to shoot yourself in the foot.

I have seen discussions on this mailing list, and on some IETF 
meetings, going around in circles regarding multimaster replication 
where the wg chair(s) together with other wg participants have tried 
to tell you that the model you propose is not what the wg is doing. 
The discussion basically started (as far I can recollect) with your 
submission of draft-langer-ldup-mdcr-00.txt in april 2000.

Do _you_ have any suggestion on how the wg can get some more progress?

     paf