[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG process etc. [Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios]
Hi Pekka, all,
Thanks for your reply.
Your interpretation about my email seems to me correct, see below in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
> De: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
> Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Fecha: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:31:42 +0200 (EET)
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> CC: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: WG process etc. [Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios]
>
> 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
Yes, that should be a must ! I never understood those "secret" conversations
among the ADs and the co-chairs that lead to decisions, which in my opinion
belong to the community, the WG.
>
> 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.
Yes, I will say those documents are in a very good shape, and have the same
right to be considered WG items as many others.
>
> 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
Is difficult to ask and suggest improvements when the previous conversations
are kept secret. Is difficult to provide comments without a concrete and
very clear rationale behind the decisions. The openness should come fist
from your side ;-)
> 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 :)
That's why I'm asking for ;-). The discussion in IETF60 was again after some
close and "secret" talks, and this is a big part of the issue and problem.
If I look into the chapter, which is the only "legally valid framework" for
our work and for the decisions, I see a lot of operational works that are
being excluded from becoming WG items (even just ask the WG for it), which
is very unfair, and "legally against our own chapter". The decisions are
being taken in an unbalanced way, in my opinion.
>
> 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'
> :).
Agree, but in general I see the WG (as a whole) not very proactive, and I'm
wondering if some of us are becoming so upset in the way this is being
driven, that we are just giving up.
Quick though (which could be a natural human reaction): Why I need to put
more effort on this WG if work that are clearly within the chapter are not
being considered, despite the lot of hours behind that work ?
>
>> 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.
I recall Erik already commented about this ... I think even there was some
official request from 3GPP. I'm not opposing to that, but wondering if this
is the correct way we should act on those request, and what are the
consequences about that in the future towards other similar requests from
other groups.
On the other way around, I perfectly understand that industry is leading and
some non-standards are becoming de facto standards, which is not good.
That's why we need to work faster and in parallel instead of in serial and
slow mode. If the WG is not commenting or providing inputs, but there are no
objections either, the work should be standardized.
>
> 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!
No, it was just an example. Nothing against this specific document, but is a
good example of the way the WG, and in general IETF is doing. How is
possible we have a document for a 3GPP-zeroconfiguration that we do during
the past meeting, and has been prioritized in such way, and other works
aren't treated the same way ?
Also, if there was a 3GPP request (may be I'm wrong about this), why this
has not been published openly in the IETF exploders, or web page or whatever
?
>
> (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
>
>
**********************************
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.