RE: WG starting point - WG query

["Paul George" <pgeorge@saraf.com>]

>         1.  Shall the working group take Scott's Requirements
>             document and Scott's protocol specification is
>             direct input, and then seek to refine them?

I have no problems with going forward with Scott's input.

Paul George
SARAF Software Solutions
(703)538-5666 x234


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se [mailto:owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se]On
Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 12:40 PM
To: ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject: WG starting point - WG query
Importance: High


At 10:40 AM 2/4/2001 -0500, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
>Let me be clear about what I mean: the requirements draft has been out for
>broad IETF review for 10+ months.  If people are only now taking notice
>because we are forming a WG, it would be more productive to stop
complaining
>and get comments in _now_ than to insist that there hasn't been ample time
>for review.

And let ME underscore that the Requirements document very much HAS been
reviewed by others.

         When it came out, did many people assume that it was biased
towards NSI?  Yes.

         When they read it did they change their minds?  Yes.

         Did the same thing happen with the protocol specification?  Yes.

         Does this mean that starting with those documents means that the
working group would have no work to do?  Not at all.

The philosophical difference that is creating the current set of tensions
is whether this IETF working group should

         a) move very aggressively, and

         b) whether it can take advantage of pre-existing work by Scott to
finish much more quickly would otherwise be possible.

         -----

So I am personally requesting feedback from the others on this list,
concerning consensus about use of Scott's existing work:

         My sense is that the Requirements document has already received
extensive community review and has general support.

         My sense is that Scott's protocol specification has already
received extensive community review and has general support.

         The terms of a working group charter need to have consensus of the
proto-working group.  In other words, it is not just produced by the chair
and the IESG.  It has to have support by those who will be participating in
the working group.

         Taking existing documents as a starting point for a working group
is an entirely acceptable practise in the IETF... IF there is consensus to
do so.  The benefit is making progress MUCH more quickly.

         This does not prevent making changes.  When taking existing
documents, the point of the working group is to REFINE things.  Hence, the
working group takes over the document(s) and may make whatever changes it
deems appropriate.

         Language in the charter often specifically cites such documents
and limits the nature of the changes, in order to ensure better WG
focus.  Hence, the charter language is intended to create a bias against
big changes.  However let me repeat that strong working group consensus
retains authority to make whatever changes the working group deems
appropriate.

So my question to the working group:

         1.  Shall the working group take Scott's Requirements document and
Scott's protocol specification is direct input, and then seek to refine
them?

Or:

         2.  Shall the working group start from scratch and seek full
development of Requirements and full development of a protocol
specification, including possible choice among competing specifications?

In my opinion, alternative #2 usually costs a working group no less than
6-12 months EXTRA.  Taking as much as 2 years EXTRA is not unusual!

d/


----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464