WG process etc. [Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

As your reply seems to have been more about the overall process, 
rather than these particular documents themselves, I've renamed the 
thread.

Let's try to keep these issues separate; if you have specific comments 
about the drafts themselves, those would obviously also be appreciated 
(under the original thread).

In a slightly different order,

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> 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.
[...]
> 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.

Just to be clear, could you articulate clearly what you believe are 
the concrete problems and/or what you believe would be the fixes to 
these problems?  Either on or off-list as you feel appropriate.

My interpretation of what you wrote seems to be:

 1. you'd wish to have more dialogue on the list on the way WG is 
managed

 2. as a particular point of 1), you'd wish to have more documents 
(e.g., draft-palet-tun-auto-disc, draft-palet-solution-tun-auto-disc) 
be called out whether they could be WG documents.

As for 1), yes, that's the goal, as far as it seems reasonable.  And 
one can always ask, and suggest improvements... And as for 2), that 
has been a priorization choice which was discussed at IETF60.  The 
reasons may not have been made sufficiently clear, but at least it was 
offered for public debate :)

More discussion is good, but I'd also like for us all to keep in mind 
that at least I personally would rather be concentrating on technical 
work rather than having lengthy debates on what should or should not 
be done in the WG, or in what order and in what manner.  Granted, 
those discussions are likely necessary now and then, but hopefully we 
should concentrate more on 'doing' rather than 'talking about doing' 
:).

> 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.

I'm not sure if it's clear what you refer to here.  3GPP isn't treated 
specially AFAIK, in the sense that its WG adoption etc. is done at the 
same time as for the rest.

Maybe you're referrring to the fact that the 3GPP requirements are 
documented in a separate document, not as part of the generic 
requirements document?  The reason is mostly historical, as you know, 
but if people in the WG think that these should not be in the separate 
documents, now is the right time to speak up!

(Follow-ups to this should probably go back in the original thread!)

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings