Your questions seem to indicate that you are addressing a specific
problem. The normal path of complaint is the WG chair, the responsible
AD, and, if required, appeal to the IESG.
The purpose of the IETF is to develop the standards needed by the Internet,
with reasonable quality and at reasonable speed, in an open and fair process.
We need to consider all these matters in this light.
At 11:51 08/03/2001 +0900, Jiwoong Lee wrote:
>Questions. Is it a good tradition to form a 'design team'
>in a WG and to let that group design something excluding
>the rest of the WG,
Yes. IETF working groups are notoriously lousy at designing protocols in
comittee. However, when they are functioning well, they do criticism and
exposing of protocol flaws REALLY well. A good design team is ready to
accept feedback and suggestions on its proposals.
> and to accept the design result
>as a WG official opinion ?
No. The Working Group output should reflect the (possibly rough) consensus
among ALL its members.
>Second one. Is it a good tradition not to ask consensus
>from the audience at the IETF meeting site, if the design
>team is made of 'core and active' members in it ?
No.
However, there may be times when a WG chair believes that the group has
consensus before the meeting (from the mailing list), and sees no reason to
waste the time of the WG reconfirming that consensus in the meeting.
It is then the responsibility of the non-consenting participants to:
1) Make sure their issues are raised ON THE MAILING LIST ahead of the meeting
Remember that the physical meeting is just a part of the WG.
2) Make the point AT THE MEETING that they do not believe the WG has
consensus on the document proposed.
>Final one. Is it a good tradition to consume most of the
>meeting time in debating technical matters of an ID,
>between the AUTHORS of that ID ?
It is very good tradition to consume most of the meeting time at the
IETF in debating technical matters of an ID. The purpose of the IETF is,
after all, to produce the best possible technical specifications.
It is, however, very bad practice to not attempt to address relevant issues
raised by WG members ahead of the meeting (I do recommend sending out
agendas WITH ALLOCATED TIMES for the agenda items), and it is totally
unacceptable practice to refuse to let WG members speak to the issues
addressed in the meeting (within the usual constraints of time, relevance
and propriety).
But it is the responsibility of the WG members to indicate their desire to
speak, and to do the speaking.
>PS. What rights does a WG chair have ?
The rights and duties of a WG chair are documented in BCP 25, RFC 2418,
"IETF Working Group guidelines and procedures". Section 3.3 appears most
relevant.
>I hope this coming IETF meeting opens its door to all.
The doors are open. What we do when we get inside is our common responsibility.
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
