Subject: RE: Fixed font v multiple fonts

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 06:34:14 -0700

> Is it useful for "everyman" to participate in the IETF?

If the current rate of people leaving continues pretty soon you are going to
be saying yes.

> Killing bad ideas is difficult enough already.. ;-)

If there was a working decision procedure it would not be necessary for
every bad idea to continue on forever.

> Is there a problem with RFC3285 (and possibly revised templates)?

Well it does not work on the MAC for starters as there is no generic print
driver and going from the RFC format to Doc format is entirely manual.

Is there any problem with RFC 2854, a format for which there is no shortage
of editors of every type?

The issue isn't the file format, the issue is who gets to choose. In the
IETF it is a directive that comes from on high, you are going to do things
our way, you get no choice, our way is best, the fact that you even suggest
any other way makes you sound like a crank.

		Phill

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:54:44 -0400

Phrased differently, it is quite clear that our decision process and not 
clear enough or strong enough.  Many working group chairs find it difficult 
to deal with repeated raising of the same issue.  The IETF list and plenary 
find it extremely difficult to avoid rediscussing the same topics.

One part of this is that it is actually difficult for someone new to know 
what many of the decisions of a working group have been.  Some of the 
problem tracking tools we are starting to use should help that.

Additionally, there seems to be a tendency historically for vociferous 
individuals (and we have plenty of those) to keep pushing even when many 
folks think that an issue is settled.  Sometimes this has even turned out 
to be a good thing.  WHich of course makes it that much harder to craft 
rules preventing it...

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:44:35 -0700

Modern engineering methods not required?

I regard that statement as a real problem.

		Phill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 10:29 AM
> To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Fixed font v multiple fonts
> 
> 
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:30:07 -0700 
> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> ] Requiring all communication to take place through a medium 
> that does not
> ] support graphs, mathematical notations, schematics, 
> drawings or even italics
> ] is one of the main reasons that use of modern engineering methods is
> ] impossible in the IETF.
> 
> but this is not required.  so your premise is false.
> 
> we have enough real problems without having to tackle non-problems.
>

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:25:15 +0200

I totally agree with Keith here, this is not a subject for this WG.

Regarding the RFC document format, the RFC ASCII format is in my opinion outstanding, compared to the complicated formatting rules used by other organizations where you waste lots of time just on getting the document format right.

/L-E

> Sent: den 9 juli 2003 16:29
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:22:14 -0400

I have trouble seeing this as an issue about "who gets to decide".  There 
have been repeated discussions of the question on the IETF list (where it 
belongs).  Each time, it is quite clear that the rough consensus of the 
community is to retain the current policy because its benefits exceed its 
drawbacks.

Folks have noticed that there are some difficulties preparing documents, so 
they have built tools to help.  There is a MS Word template.  There are a 
set of tools that Marshall Rose has pulled together to allow one to prepare 
the material in XML.

What is being said here is that the question of what the format for 
documents should be is not a core problem.  Given that we have evidence of 
significant discussion and community input on that topic, I do not see 
evidence that this is a "top-down" problem, or even evidence that there is 
a community perception of a top down order.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 06:18 AM 7/10/2003 -0700, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>Apparently on the grounds that you don't think it is a problem.
>
>The PROBLEM I see with the IETF is that the top down management insists on
>having its way on every damn last thing. Including this issue.
>
>If the IETF establishment won't even budge on this one then there is zero
>value to the rest of PROBLEM.
>
>
> > Regarding the RFC document format, the RFC ASCII format is in
> > my opinion outstanding, compared to the complicated
> > formatting rules used by other organizations where you waste
> > lots of time just on getting the document format right.
>
>
>I have never spent half as much time getting a document format right as I
>have for the IETF. Even the W3C rules for HTML are not as much hassle.
>
>Again, the issue is who gets to decide.