Subject: Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

From: "C. Adam Stolinski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 08:58:27 -0700

I had no idea that the IETF had become another "Alice in Wonderland"
spec group!

Is it about standards for implementation - or about busying ourselves
with "workgroups"???

RFC 1628 works, is implemented by the entire UPS industry, and nobody
feels that it needs any changes.  So, the IETF position is lets make it
obsolete, because there is no activity in the WG?????

There is a difference between "work" and "makework".

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Regards,
Adam

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
To: C. Adam Stolinski <[email-masked]>; Maria Greene
<[email-masked]>
Cc: IETF UPS-MIB <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: Consensus? RFC1628 to Historic

>The formalist AD steps in to explain IETF procedures
>
>In order for a document to progress to Draft Standard (the next step
for
>the UPS MIB), the IETF rules (RFC 2026) require:
>
>- Documentation that all objects have in fact been implemented by
>  at least 2 independent implementations (this is to verify that the
>  specs are clear enough to implement from)
>
>- WG consensus that there are no objects that need to have their
>  definitions updated, or should be deprecated or declared obsolete
>  (MIB rules say you can't delete things, only make them obsolete)
>  Or a new draft that has those changes, if the WG deems it required.
>  (New functionality needs to be a separate document)
>
>This translates to "the WG must do work".
>If nobody is willing to spend time and effort in doing this, there
>is probably no reason to keep the spec on the IETF Standards Track.
>
>
>
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>IETF Area Director, Operations and Management
>

---

From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 12:15:42 -0400

>I had no idea that the IETF had become another "Alice in Wonderland"

Alice in Wonderland or not you don't appear to be aware of either the IETF
standards process or the reasons behind it.

>Is it about standards for implementation - or about busying ourselves

It's about practical, working standards.

>obsolete, because there is no activity in the WG?????

No, it's because there's no way to tell a standard that nobody cares about
from one that's good unless the people who implement it take the time to
say so.

>There is a difference between "work" and "makework".

Most of the people I know who are involved in Internet standards have more
work than they can already handle.  They're unlikely to make work just so
they can apppear busy.

>"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

If you can't tell whether it's a viable standard, don't leave the illusion
that it is.

The work involved falls mostly on the working group chair, collecting
implementation reports and writing a recommendation for advancement to
Draft Standard, then repeating the effort to promote to full Internet
Standard.

The maxim you suggest should be invoked when people start suggesting
significant changes to the standard itself.

	Bob

---

From: [email-masked] (Maria Greene)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 15:41:03 -0400

Thanks, Bob and Harald, for explaining the procedure. Yes, there is
work to do if we want the RFC to advance and my sense is that there's
noone willing to help with it. Correct me if I'm wrong by
volunteering. A change to Historic will not make the MIB less useful
(or make any referencing documents less correct) and I doubt many
customers check the standards process status when evaluating products.

Maria

>>>>> "Bob" == Bob Stewart <[email-masked]> writes:

    Bob> At 08:58 AM 7/30/98 -0700, C. Adam Stolinski wrote:
    >> I had no idea that the IETF had become another "Alice in
    >> Wonderland" spec group!

    Bob> Alice in Wonderland or not you don't appear to be aware of
    Bob> either the IETF standards process or the reasons behind it.

    >> Is it about standards for implementation - or about busying
    >> ourselves with "workgroups"???

    Bob> It's about practical, working standards.

    >> RFC 1628 works, is implemented by the entire UPS industry, and
    >> nobody feels that it needs any changes.  So, the IETF position
    >> is lets make it obsolete, because there is no activity in the
    >> WG?????

    Bob> No, it's because there's no way to tell a standard that
    Bob> nobody cares about from one that's good unless the people who
    Bob> implement it take the time to say so.

    >> There is a difference between "work" and "makework".

    Bob> Most of the people I know who are involved in Internet
    Bob> standards have more work than they can already handle.
    Bob> They're unlikely to make work just so they can apppear busy.

    >> "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

    Bob> If you can't tell whether it's a viable standard, don't leave
    Bob> the illusion that it is.

    Bob> The work involved falls mostly on the working group chair,
    Bob> collecting implementation reports and writing a
    Bob> recommendation for advancement to Draft Standard, then
    Bob> repeating the effort to promote to full Internet Standard.

    Bob> The maxim you suggest should be invoked when people start
    Bob> suggesting significant changes to the standard itself.

    Bob> 	Bob

---

From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 16:19:45 -0400

At 03:41 PM 7/30/98 -0400, Maria Greene wrote:
>A change to Historic will not make the MIB less useful

Good point.  If the UPS community wants an official Internet Standard, they
have to go through the process.  If they're happy with a centrally-located,
common document carrying the cachet of "Internet RFC" then Historic status
is just fine.

You get what you're willing to work for.  "Internet Standard" implies
considerable community cooperation and review, and that takes time and
process, both of which are still less than most standards organizations.

	Bob