Subject: Re: Newsgroup names #1021 (was: #1008 USEFOR 1.5 References: Final text on "followup")

From: John Stanley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:12:25 -0700 (PDT)

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>This was an issue that Charles raised off-list, I believe.

This is the IETF working group tasked with news. There is no "off-list"
issue, either it comes here or it isn't.

>Good point - if filing tickets in response to issues raised off-list, we 
>need to make sure the WG is notified.....

You are certainly kidding, aren't you? You are actually putting more 
emphasis on this trouble ticket system than on the working group? Gee,
MAYBE we ought to mention trouble tickets on the working group that is 
supposed to be dealing with them? 

>The following comment was added by someone logged in as "ietf":

That's how you told people to access the tickets. Is it odd that they
do it the way you told them? And that they way you told them is 
essentially anonymous?

Since I pointed out this problem in private and never got any resolution 
to it, I'll now bring it up in public. 

Why is this "trouble ticket" system using HTTPS with bogus certificates? 
This prevents participation by those who refuse to accept bogus certs. Or 
perhaps that was the goal?

There is no reason for https. IETF discussions are supposed to be public.  
Whatever you post there is supposed to be available to anyone who wants to
see it. There is no security issue: Harald published the username/password
pair we are supposed to use to access the site. Why https?

But more important, WHY does the trouble ticket system exist at all? If
Harald wants to keep a tickler file of issues he thinks needs to be
resolved, that's fine. If he wants to publish this list, fine. 

When that list takes on the task of discussing the issues, not so fine.  
If Charles's issue is worth discussing, it is worth discussing here. This
"trouble ticket"  system is a violation of, if not the letter, the spirit
of IETF working groups, not only in theory, but now in practice. There
should never be a question of "should we tell the WG about this issue
we're discussing on this trouble ticket system?" Never. It should never be
possible to have that question come up.

Since it has now been demonstrated that the question has to be asked, it
is time to shut down the trouble ticket system and bring discussion back
home. Holding discussions in two places, one of which has limited access,
is wrong. 

And then I run across this gem in "Friday - Ticket status":

>1002 USEFOR 6. References - Updates needed
> No discussion; ticket seems clear.

References has been discussed at length IN THIS LIST, but now that there
is no discussion in the "trouble ticket" system, the answer is clear.

The only thing that is clear is that this trouble ticket system is being 
used to bypass the standard IETF working group process. Either that, or it 
creates the marvelous illusion that it is being used to bypass the 
process, and either situation is unacceptable.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 00:08:55 +0200

> supposed to be dealing with them?

John, how much does it take to make you see that the door you're trying to 
bash in is already open?
The fact that this issue made it onto the ticket system without the list 
being notified is an error; it is the list that is the WG.

> perhaps that was the goal?

Because this system is run as a voluntary gift to the IETF by Randy Bush, 
and he thinks the entire idea of trusting "root certificates" just because 
they got shipped with your browser is ludicrous.
I can see his point.

>  Whatever you post there is supposed to be available to anyone who wants
> to see it. There is no security issue: Harald published the
> username/password pair we are supposed to use to access the site. Why
> https?

Take it up with Randy. I wish you luck.

> home. Holding discussions in two places, one of which has limited access,

John, I'll be impolite for once.
This group has demonstrated conclusively that just having discussions on 
the list does not lead to the group finishing.
A trouble ticket system is one means of helping a group close.
Your behaviour is part of the reason the group is not finishing.

> is no discussion in the "trouble ticket" system, the answer is clear.

You didn't get the point that "6." referred to section 6 in the document, 
did you?

> used to bypass the standard IETF working group process. Either that, or
> it  creates the marvelous illusion that it is being used to bypass the

Feel free to leave, John.