Subject: [Terminology] Do you intend to use draft-knodel-terminology as if it is the opinion of the IETF?

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2021 18:16:14 +1100

Hi Mallory and Niels,

I made what could probably be construed as "an insinuation" in a recent comment to this list, so I figure it's only polite to directly address the direct question to you:

If `draft-knodel-terminology` is published as an independent-stream RFC, do you intend to reference that document in contexts outside the IETF, and make claims that it is more than your own personal opinions?

I would appreciate an answer on this direct question from each of you, in this public forum, where it is archived and can be referenced in future.

Thanks,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [email-masked]

---

From: "Bron Gondwana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 10:57:39 +1100

Just following up on this now that the IETF week is over.  While I'm aware that I can't compel you to answer this question - I think it is an important question to ask, and it's an important question to have an honest and forthright answer to.  So I am asking you both directly to answer it.

This question does go directly to the point of the independent series of RFCs.  As a place to keep the history of the IETF, of ideas considered and not ultimately selected by IETF consensus - and as a place for humourous digs at the absurd edges of the space we work in (the April 1st series) it's very valuable.

Documenting the work that went into draft-knodel-terminology as an independent submission as a historical not of a point in time may have some value - though I would argue in that case that what we should be documenting instead is all three of the submissions that were made (mine and Keith's as well) in a single "here's what was considered" informational RFC for future historians to mull over.

But to many outside the IETF, the difference between "Independent Submission" and "Cast In Stone Internet Standard[tm]" is not at all obvious, and the mere fact of having a RFC number lends gravitas to the topic covered.  So publishing this one set of opinions as "an RFC", and referencing said RFC to buttress debate outside the IETF, would be a disingenuous and dishonest representation of the IETF's name and reputation.

Hence my question.

Regards,

Bron.

On Sun, Nov 7, 2021, at 18:16, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> Terminology mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology
>

---

From: "Maisonneuve, Julien (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 09:17:34 +0000

+1.
J.

From: Terminology <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Bron Gondwana
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 12:58 AM
To: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Cc: RFC ISE (Adrian Farrel) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Terminology] Do you intend to use draft-knodel-terminology as if it is the opinion of the IETF?

Hence my question.

Regards,

Bron.

If draft-knodel-terminology is published as an independent-stream RFC, do you intend to reference that document in contexts outside the IETF, and make claims that it is more than your own personal opinions?

Thanks,

Bron.

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

--
Terminology mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/terminology

--
  Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd
  [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 11:55:47 +0100

Bron,

I'm not Mallory (surprise), but if you don't mind, I would like to take 
a stab at answering you.

On 15.11.21 00:57, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> [snip]

> Documenting the work that went into draft-knodel-terminology as an 
> independent submission as a historical not of a point in time may have 
> some value - though I would argue in that case that what we should be 
> documenting instead is all three of the submissions that were made 
> (mine and Keith's as well) in a single "here's what was considered" 
> informational RFC for future historians to mull over.
>
> But to many outside the IETF, the difference between "Independent 
> Submission" and "Cast In Stone Internet Standard[tm]" is not at all 
> obvious, and the mere fact of having a RFC number lends gravitas to 
> the topic covered.  So publishing this one set of opinions as "an 
> RFC", and referencing said RFC to buttress debate outside the IETF, 
> would be a disingenuous and dishonest representation of the IETF's 
> name and reputation.

Some of this is handled in the boiler plate, which reads as follow from 
the style guide[1]:

> Independent Submission Stream: “This is a contribution to the RFC 
> Series, independently of any other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has 
> chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no 
> statement about its value for implementation or deployment.
>
> For non-IETF stream documents a reference to Section 2 of this RFC is 
> added with the following sentence: “Documents approved for publication 
> by the [stream approver — currently, one of: “IAB”, “IRSG”, or “RFC 
> Editor”] are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard; see 
> Section 2 of RFC 7841.”
>
To me it's important to allow someone to publish a document that might 
even propose contradicting IETF policy.  But the document should be 
clear that it is not a representation of IETF policy. or the result of 
any consensus process.  That holds true for *any* independent 
submission, not just this one.

Eliot

[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 03:19:08 -0800

Hi Bron,

[removed authors of the draft and the ISE as recipients]

>would be a disingenuous and dishonest representation of the IETF's 

It makes life easier if a person is upfront about any potential 
conflicts.  I'll disclose that I am on the ISEB.

Many years ago, there was an attempt to shut down the Independent 
Stream.  I argued for keeping the Stream.  The argument, if from what 
I remember, was that it could be a yardstick to measure the success 
(or failure) of the Internet Standards Process.

I'll comment about the "disingenous and dishonest representation 
..."  Some participants stated that "the IETF is not the Internet 
police".  That is not accurate if an external publication is blocked 
to protect the IETF's name and reputation [1].  Adding to that, it is 
not appropriate for the external publication to publish an opinion 
which misrepresent the facts about the IETF.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. Please do not read the sentence as a statement of support for 
publication of the draft.

---

From: Dan Harkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 04:53:52 -0800

Eliot,

On 11/15/21 2:55 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> Bron,
>
> I'm not Mallory (surprise), but if you don't mind, I would like to 
> take a stab at answering you.
>
>> independent submission as a historical not of a point in time may 
>> have some value - though I would argue in that case that what we 
>> should be documenting instead is all three of the submissions that 
>> were made (mine and Keith's as well) in a single "here's what was 
>> considered" informational RFC for future historians to mull over.
>>
> Some of this is handled in the boiler plate, which reads as follow 
> from the style guide[1]:
>
>> added with the following sentence: “Documents approved for 
>> publication by the [stream approver — currently, one of: “IAB”, 
>> “IRSG”, or “RFC Editor”] are not candidates for any level of Internet 
>> Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.”
>>

   The issue is not whether boilerplate language will or will not be 
included, the issue
is that for a large portion of the world outside the IETF, the 
distinction between a
non-IETF stream document and an Internet Standard is not clear. People 
can use this haze
to proceed as if they have the imprimatur of the IETF on their work. You 
know this.

   Given how the authors have behaved in the past (drumming up interest 
in their particular
brand of "diversity, equity and inclusion" by mentioning all the 
organizations they have
visited while drumming up interest-- it's a bandwagon, jump on!) it's a 
reasonable
question. A question that is not answered by quoting from the style 
guide. The authors
need to answer it.

   Dan.

-- 
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 15:11:38 -0800

Bron,

I generally share your concerns, but wouldn’t be asking the question 
“…and make claims that it is more than your personal opinions” 
because it assumes that the authors might be acting in bad faith. I do 
have concerns about the publication of this document as an RFC (and I 
owe the ISE a message on that), but most of my concerns extend well 
beyond this particular document.

There is considerable potential for this document to be viewed as an 
IETF statement. I learned of this document’s existence through a 
reference in an earlier revision of the *NIST Technical Series 
Publications Author Instructions* to an early revision of 
draft-knodel-terminology citing it as “IETF”. This has now been 
replaced with a reference to https://github.com/ietf/terminology (which 
I also have questions about with respect to IETF consensus), but it 
shows how documents of this sort can be misconstrued as coming from 
IETF. The potential for this is amplified by giving the document an RFC 
number.

-Jim
Disclaimer: I am a consultant for NIST, but these opinions are mine and 
and not a statement from NIST.

On 14 Nov 2021, at 15:57, Bron Gondwana wrote:

> Just following up on this now that the IETF week is over.  While I'm 
> aware that I can't compel you to answer this question - I think it is 
> an important question to ask, and it's an important question to have 
> an honest and forthright answer to.  So I am asking you both directly 
> to answer it.
>
> This question does go directly to the point of the independent series 
> of RFCs.  As a place to keep the history of the IETF, of ideas 
> considered and not ultimately selected by IETF consensus - and as a 
> place for humourous digs at the absurd edges of the space we work in 
> (the April 1st series) it's very valuable.
>
>> I made what could probably be construed as "an insinuation" in a 
>> recent comment to this list, so I figure it's only polite to directly 
>> address the direct question to you:
>>
>> If `draft-knodel-terminology` is published as an independent-stream 
>> RFC, do you intend to reference that document in contexts outside the 
>> IETF, and make claims that it is more than your own personal 
>> opinions?
>>
>> I would appreciate an answer on this direct question from each of 
>> you, in this public forum, where it is archived and can be referenced 
>> in future.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bron.
>>
>> --

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 22:25:23 -0800

Hi Jim,
At 03:11 PM 17-11-2021, Jim Fenton wrote:
>IETF statement. I learned of this document's existence through a 
>reference in an earlier revision of the NIST Technical Series 
>Publications Author Instructions to an early revision of 
>draft-knodel-terminology citing it as "IETF". This has now been 
>replaced with a reference to https://github.com/ietf/terminology 
>(which I also have questions about with respect to IETF consensus), 
>but it shows how documents of this sort can be misconstrued as 
>coming from IETF. The potential for this is amplified by giving the 
>document an RFC number.

Thanks for raising the above issue.  I don't think that it is a good 
idea to apply a different "rule" for the github.com repository.  The 
repository does not represent consensus.  It can also be misconstrued 
as the IETF's position on the question of terminology.

There is the following sentence in the Abstract of -07: "This 
document represents the opinion of the authors and does not have IETF 
consensus."  It is unusual to see an author including such a 
statement in his/her draft.

Several IETF participants supported the draft, if my reading is 
correct.  It is not clear whether those participants reviewed the 
draft as there isn't any acknowledgement in the draft.

Now, I understand why you asked whether the reviews would be publicly 
accessible.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy