Re: Reply to opsec feedback from Harald Alvestrand

[George Jones <gmj@pobox.com>]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Thanks George!
>
> It was good to hear that the "spoofed packet" thing was a quickly fixed
> glitch.

Have feeback from Pekka on changes that were made earlier.  Pretty
sure it is solid now.

> I'm worried, though, about the fact that things are bad enough that we have
> to get a document on the IESG's table for *approval* in order to get
> serious review on it.....

I share your concern.  From a note I just sent to smb:

> <meta issue>
> ...one thing I don't understand is why, with this level of
> socialization, there has not been more operator input along the way.
> Eitehr a) they don't care and are just willing to live with what
> vendors deliver b) they are too busy c) they think the IETF is
> "vendors only" d) they are cynical about IETF work ammounting
> to real improvment in their lives or d) they think "somebody's
> working on it, I don't have to speak up" or e) I totally missed
> the mark with the draft (I don't think that's it).  Any or all
> of a-d should be a concern for the IETF WRT the level of operator
> participation.
> </meta issue>


> that just ain't right; not only does it create
> needless work and feelings of confrontation,

None here.   I'm happy to have construtive feedback wherever, wherever.

> there's also a real risk that
> the IESG could miss the fact that it isn't ready and approve things
> prematurely.....

> Yes, we all know the problem of getting enough attention - and enough
> attention from the RIGHT people. Sometimes it seems that the only workable
> way is to grab them by the throat one by one.... and that can only be done
> if you have significant credit with them already.....
>
> Sigh. How is it going with collecting people willing to give it a serious
> review before/in Korea?

smb is trying to get that together but is aparently is suffering
similar problems: not enough nominations of reviewers.

Since it is the IESG that needs to be satisfied, then it would
probably be best if the reviewers were people the IESG members
know and trust (and have credit with).

Thanks,
---George Jones