Re: [Geopriv] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-geopriv-pres-01

From: John Schnizlein ^lt;>
Date: Tue Jul 27 2004 - 21:51:11 EDT

My impression is that the subject draft is an attempt to preempt other
"using protocols" by getting the favorite of an AD out first. I am
very much aware of bias by another ADs for an "there can be only one"
view of standard's track approaches (which I think is mistaken). While
this draft explicitly says it is not the only one, there might be a
tacit understanding that the other AD will provide for the exclusivity.

Ever since the WG chairs provided a surprise agenda item for the author
of this draft to sabotage a draft of mine without even notifying me
that it was on the agenda (not on the published agenda), I have been
suspicious. When that AD exclaimed "you don't like anything I say"
in an interim meeting, my suspicion hardened into skepticism of that
AD. You must understand that the predictable result of special
favors for a WG participant who happens to be an AD (in a different
area) is permanent suspicion of every other unusual process by the
WG chairs. ADs who will target a WG member this way are not fit to

If the WG chairs motive is really just to avoid too many WGLC's at
once, it should be some other proposal than the cozy (mutual back
scratching) favor for a member of the IESG that gets the first shot.
This is a test of the sincerity of the WG chairs. An extra week of
open last-call is not sufficient evidence of fairness.


At 08:58 PM 7/27/2004, Allison Mankin wrote:
>The only reason for making the WGLC timing this way was to avoid
>running too many WGLC's in parallel - we anticipated WGLC's starting
>up after the meeting for other documents and wanted to try to keep
>moving on our milestones, at the gentle urging of our AD.
>geopriv-pres is short, has been stable for a long time,
>and has no protocols in it; it is very much an Informational.
>Are there specific concerns with the document?
>Moving the WGLC out to close a week later would be no problem,
>of course.
>> I have never seen scheduling a last call to overlap with a regular
>> IETF meeting as blatant as this. What is the motive for overloading
>> the last-call on this document with the meeting that demands attention
>> from most people involved with IETF? What urgency could justify the
>> unusual and inconvenient timing of this prerogative of the WG chair?
>> This appears to be violation of the principle of open and fair process
>> within the IETF!
>> John
>> At 08:23 PM 7/27/2004, Andrew Newton wrote:
>> >All,
>> >
>> >This is the start of a two-week GEOPRIV working group last call for
>> "A Presence Architecture for the Distribution of Geopriv Location Objects" (
>> >
>> >The period is two weeks. Please send your comments no later than 11-August-20
>> 04.
>> >
>> >Allison, Andy and Randy

Geopriv mailing list
Received on Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:51:11 -0400

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 27 2004 - 21:54:36 EDT