Subject: Re: LDUP WG - RFC 2026 s 6.5.4 appeal

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:35:23 +0200

This is the response from Area Directors for Applications Area, Ned Freed
and Patrik Fältström, to an appeal from mr Albert Langer.

1) Finalization of Proposed Standard before Architecture

 It is justified to ask whether the work on the proposed standard should
 start before the architecture document is carved in stone. The truth is
 though that there have not been a last call in the IETF for any of the
 documents, so we can not see that the protocol (which you call proposed
 standard) is finished before the architecture.
 
 You might object working on things in parallell but that is still a
 question which is to be discussed inside the wg.

 Doing things in parallell is not automatically a process violation.

 Having gone back through the archives, the order of Last Calls in the WG
 were "replica-req-01", "ldup-model-02", "replica-req-06".
 
 Conclusion: As the protocol has not been finalized yet, we can not say
 that the protocol is finalized before the architecture. Further, we
 don't see any problem with working with both documents in parallel.

2) No review of WG progress despite delays exceeding two years

 It is true that the wg is delayed, but that is unfortunately something
 which is quite normal in the IETF. But, we see that the order things have
 been handled is according to the charter, and there have been progress.
 Further, unfortunately most of the delays in the wg after the Adelaide
 IETF meeting is becuase of discussions on (a) meta issues which ended up
 in this appeal and (b) the question why the model described in the MDCR
 draft written by mr Langer was rejected by the wg.
 
 Conclusion: We see the wg is still on track, even though it is delayed.
 The milestones in a charter should be updated to reflect the current
 view. We do see that the milestones were updated at the last update of
 the charter which was done in spring 2001. Further, the slow progress in
 the wg is not the result of actions (or lack thereof) by the wg chairs.
 
3) Unauthorized posting of revised WG charter
 
 After looking through the archives on how a proposed revised WG charter
 was posted to the wg mailinglist, we can not find any errors made by the
 wg chairs.
 
 A revised charter can be posted to the mailing list at any point in time
 when the chairs so choose. No specific questions regarding changes have
 to be asked. It is completely up to the chairs to choose what mechanism
 they use to find consensus around the new charter after which they
 report to the responsible Area Directors.
 
 The most common mechanism is to send the new charter to the mailing list,
 and see if there are any comments. Silence means no objection.
 
 While the WG needs to reach rough consensus on the charter, the
 actual writing of the charter is done by the chairs and the IESG.
 
 Conclusion: We find that the wg chairs did reach rough
 consensus in the wg for the revised charter. A charter which also later
 was accepted by the IESG and IAB. Something which happens after the wg
 consensus is reached.
 
4) Refusal to resolve technical issues in WG list
 
 We see that many of the issues which mr Langer has brought up has been
 rejected by the wg by rough consensus. I.e. not many of the proposals
 have been picked up by the wg members. Some have on the other hand
 beeing picked up by the authors of the requirements document.
 
 Further, if the complaint is that the wg chairs have not been active in
 the discussions themselves, that is a normal stand which wg chairs take,
 and the stand which according to the wg chairs they took in this case.
 I.e. the wg chairs are to make decision on whether consensus exists, and
 not try to be part in the discussions. Conclusion by the chairs were
 that the MDCR draft was rejected, and the mechanisms specified in it was
 not chosen by the wg by rough consensus. The wg chairs have after that
 decision tried to move forward, and not further discuss the issue(s).
 
 Conclusion: The wg chairs have in a correct way made a decision whether
 rough consensus exists for various technical aspects, during some months
 after the IETF meeting in Adelaide. Result of this evaluation was also
 discussed at the following IETF meeting. See point 12 in the minutes from
 the july 2000 meeting of the IETF (the 48th IETF).
 
5) Bullying retaliation in response to formal objections by John
 
 Such behavior is subject to personal interpretation. We don't see the wg
 chairs have behaved in a specifically bad manner. Especially as some
 comments from mr Langer on actions and email from wg chairs, editors of
 documents and other wg participants from their view can be seen as clear
 ad-hominum attacks.
 
 Conclusion: The wg chairs have followed the process correctly, and also
 in a clear way stated when a certain item is not to be discussed in the
 wg. Reasons for this can be that the wg have already rejected the
 proposal, it might be out of scope for the wg, or it is well-known from
 earlier discussions of being a so called rat-hole -- in which case a
 discussion never will lead to any constructive result.

        Patrik Fältström                               Ned Freed