Re: One more try for interest

Thank you for the reply Larry.  It is very helpful to see.

To answer the procedural question you raise, IETF working groups are 
chartered for specific deliverables.  For good or ill, the IETF approach to 
working groups does not permit a working group to simply serve as a forum 
for evolving a technology.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

PS: A description of the LDAPisms that you believe need to be improved (not 
line by line, but concept by concept) based on the new draft the authors 
have produced would be helpful to the working group and the authors.

At 10:21 AM 2/25/2003 -0500, Larry S. Bartz wrote:
>Joel, WG,
>
>Joel M. Halpern wrote, On 02/12/2003 02:37 PM:
>>Well, a small number of additional people spoke up for my last note.
>>Reviewing my records, I do note that 2 months ago we received
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-reyes-policy-core-ext-schema-00.txt 
>>
>>an internet draft starting on the problem of an LDAP mapping of PCIMe.
>>I have seen no discussion of this draft on the list.
>>If we were to get rechartered to work on an LDAP mapping for PCIMe, is 
>>this the right document?
>
>
>The draft is a draft. If those who advocate Policy as a tool for
>implementing QoS want to carry PCIMe forward to a concrete LDAP
>implementation, they should do it.
>
>But why recharter *only* to work on an LDAP mapping for PCIMe? Policy
>has much more potential for specificity, for refinement, for extension,
>for applicability. This WG should be the forum to extend Policy in
>whatever direction it evolves.
>
>
>>Is this document so well put together that Ed and I should just ask the 
>>IESG to publish to as a PS?
>
>
>No. It needs some work, particularly with its LDAP-isms. The ABNF
>which describes the information components of PCIMe is incomplete
>and should be conformed to the style and format defined in
>RFC 2252.
>
>
>>Has anyone other than the authors even read the document?
>
>
>Yes.
>
>
>>Thank you,
>>Joel M. Halpern
>>PS: Just to be clear, if there is not significant participation we will 
>>have no choice but to close the working group.
>
>
>Don't close it before the PCLS comes out of the IANA oven and attains
>RFC status. What's up with that, anyway? What's the status of the PCLS?
>
>If the WG is closed before PCLS becomes an RFC, the WG will have
>exited without even offering a hint of a mechanism for implementing
>the Model. This would render the work which has already been
>accomplished practically useless from an interoperability standpoint.
>
>What's the rush to close the WG? Consider the history of this WG. Its
>progress has always been slower than some would have liked. Why kill
>it now? What has changed?
>
>Why has apparent interest in this WG withered? I have my own pet
>theories.
>
>THEORY 1
>The withering of this WG's vitality reflects a natural consequence
>of the evolution of the IETF's deliberative and standards setting
>processes. I'm not the first to observe that the IETF's activities
>have come to be dominated by commercial entities, by commercial
>interests. If there is a market opportunity, it seems, there is
>potential for an RFC which can serve as a marketing tool. The upside
>is that commercial entities can focus financial and human resources
>on a problem space in ways that academic, government, and pure research
>sectors cannot. By the same token, when a market segment recedes,
>withers, or is supplanted by The Next Big Thing, then the commercially
>driven support for a technology initiative which has become Yesterday's
>Catfood (marketing-wise) withers as well.
>
>Are immediate marketability and near-term market advantage the only
>true measures of a technology's necessity?
>
>THEORY 2
>When the work of this WG was PCIM and PCLS, the future of Policy
>seemed wide open. As defined in PCIM and PCLS, Policy isn't just
>for netheads and router jockeys. But when the WG's work narrowed to
>PCIMe, when the work of this WG turned to focus more explicitly on
>QoS issues, the interested audience narrowed commensurately; an
>unfortunate but natural consequence.
>
>
>Joel, I believe there is adequate justification for continuing this
>WG. Policy is bigger than QoS. If the Policy for QoS advocacy has
>faded or is temporarily dormant, so be it. But Policy has more to
>offer, and I'd like to help prove it.
>
>
>--
>--
>#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
># Larry Bartz                           |                              |
>#  [email protected]      | Ooo, ooo,                    |
>#                                       | Ooo, ooo, oooooo!            |
>#                                       | I've got a gnu attitude!     |
>#  voice (317) 226-7060                 |                              |
>#  FAX   (317) 226-6378                 |                              |
>#::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|