Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>]

Hi Pekka, all,

I agree with this decision, but I'm not sure if is fair enough.

Let me explain. In general I feel that there is too much secret discussions
among the ADs and the co-chairs. I never understood why this talks doesn't
happen within the WG mail exploder, to get other inputs, ideas, or whatever
from the WG. Even if you only get a couple of them, they might be useful.

So, I absolutely disagree with the way the decisions are being taken. This
is not consensus, is probably something closer to a semi-dictatorial
process, and don't take me wrong, you know that I don't have anything
personally against anyone, ADs and co-chairs included, but I prefer much
more being honest, open and clear. It seems to me that we somehow the WG is
getting driven to a very limited set of options.

More concretely, it's absolutely unacceptable in my opinion (even if I'm one
of the co-authors), that the 3GPP-zerocong is being prioritized while other
work, which has been around for longer time, is not treated the same way.

Last but not least, as a concrete example of this, I don't understand how we
can have pieces needed for those I-Ds which are not even considered as WG
items, like the tun-auto-disc and the solution document. If there is any
problem with those documents, please, speak up, otherwise the WG should be
asked for accepting them as WG items NOW.

Hopefully others in the WG mind something all this and have also an opinion.
Otherwise, is probably better that we stop the WG itself.

Regards,
Jordi


> De: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
> Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Fecha: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:51:23 +0300 (EEST)
> Para: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: WG last call on tunneling scenarios
> 
> (co-chair hats on)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> In the interest of moving forward from the tunneling requirements, we
> have discussed the situation with ADs, and will be proposing some
> actions.
> 
> One of these is getting a reasonable consensus on the requirements for
> zero-config and registered assisted tunneling.  In order to be able to
> discuss whether existing solutions fit the requirements, how they need
> to be modified, or which kind of new solutions should be specified,
> we'll have to get the requirements to a closure.
> 
> But finishing the requirements will have to happen fast: in the event that
> there are issues for which there is no consensus, it'll be better to just
> document both sides of the argument fairly, and move on and evaluate the
> tradeoffs when selecting or specifying the solution(s).
> 
> In order to achive this, we propose adopting the following as WG items:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00
> .txt
> http://www.v6ops.euro6ix.net/ietf/draft-suryanarayanan-v6ops-zeroconf-reqs-01.
> txt
> 
> Please speak up if you object to this.
> 
> In addition, we are issuing WG last call (for Informational) for:
> 
> draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00.txt
> draft-suryanarayanan-v6ops-zeroconf-reqs-01.txt
> draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-01.txt
> 
> Please send the comments on the list, but specify clearly which document
> you're 
> commenting on.  Now is the last chance to speak up!
> 
> The WG last call expires on Monday, 8th November (the IETF week).
> 
> Pekka & Jonne
> co-chairs
> 
> 



**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.