[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG process etc. [Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios]
Hi Jonne,
I'm not upset about this specific issue, even if it seems so. I was upset
long time ago on this ;-) We need to look in a positive way. What was done
wrong, should be recognized, and not do the same error twice !
I know it was a decision (not the WG decision, and that's the problem !),
and is to late to change it, but NOW, we have an opportunity to do better
the next steps, at least with the WG agreement.
So please, start the discussion now in the list, provide inputs about what
are your proposing, different alternatives, etc.
The meeting is never enough (even with time restrictions, people not there
which may contribute, etc.), specially if the inputs aren't there up-front.
I think that should be a fair way to continue. Do you agree ?
Regards,
Jordi
> De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>
> Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Fecha: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:35:43 +0200
> Para: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
> CC: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: Re: WG process etc. [Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios]
>
> Jordi,
>
> I see that you are upset. I'm sorry if you feel that there has not been
> enough discussion on the topic.
>
> However, we have been working in the process where we have to finish the
> scenarios/analysis to understand what we are supposed to do. This has
> been in place from the start of v6ops. Maybe there has not been enough
> discussion on this process, but I feel the discussion now is a bit late.
> We are practically finished!
>
> I hope we can discuss the next steps now in full extent in the meeting
> to make sure that nobody's voice goes unheard.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jonne.
>
>
> On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 03:08, ext JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Hi Jonne,
>>
>> Well, as you know, I think this serial-mode has been wrong all the time. At
>> least a "pure-serial" mode.
>>
>> I don't recall the WG being asked for doing this or not, just forced to.
>>
>> Is that an open process ?
>>
>> :-(
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>>
>>
>>> De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>
>>> Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>>> Fecha: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:36:28 +0200
>>> Para: "ext Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
>>> CC: jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>>> Asunto: RE: WG process etc. [Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios]
>>>
>>> Ladies, and Gentlemen of the v6ops WG,
>>>
>>> I understand that the slow process of our little WG causes some
>>> frustration among the participants of the WG.
>>>
>>> Like you all know, we have had this scenarios/analysis project going on
>>> for a long time. To facilitate the quickest possible ending of that
>>> project we decided in the IETF#60 meeting to concentrate on finishing
>>> just those tasks. This has practically meant that much of the work has
>>> concentrated on the remaining analysis document, and the now three
>>> requirements documents.
>>>
>>> Basically the plan was the following:
>>>
>>> 1) Finish the remaining analysis documents
>>> 2) Stabilize the requirements documents
>>> 3) Map the requirements to solutions
>>> 4) Refocus v6ops / start possibly needed work in the Internet Area
>>>
>>> I think we are somewhere between steps 2 and 3, right?
>>>
>>> I understand that people are anxious to start working on the actual
>>> protocols - and believe me - I hope we could have started on the
>>> technical work much earlier! However, sadly we just haven't gotten to
>>> that point.
>>>
>>> It is obvious that we have not communicated enough where are we going
>>> and to some of you this has been an indication of us doing things behind
>>> your backs. We'll try to behave better in the future. However, you
>>> shouldn't worry at least Pekka and I plotting behind your backs - we
>>> agree on so few things, it wouldn't be even possible! ;)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Jonne.
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 22:28, ext Bound, Jim wrote:
>>>> Jordi,
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> This is your confusion and the IETF changed I think about 18 months ago
>>>> or when we killed A6. Specs cannot go forward from silence and that is
>>>> now true in all IETF WGs I know of in the IETF. I first ran into this
>>>> in DHCPv6 working with Ralph as Chair many years ago. I did not like it
>>>> at first and did not get it. Then we were able to get the engineers to
>>>> comment on DHCPv6 and made the spec 10 times as strong and solid
>>>> consensus. So now I am a firm believer in silence is no good as metric
>>>> to move a spec forward. Zero conf work had lots of mail thread
>>>> discussions and appears to be valid to accept as work item within the
>>>> IETF. Bottom line is the Chairs have not broken any rule but enforcing
>>>> the rule. Also sometimes the WG is just maxed. For example we did not
>>>> get input as fast as we needed it for Enterprise Analysis but then we go
>>>> so much I am still parsing it as Ent Analysis editor. I don't think
>>>> there is any scientific method to this at all the longer I am around.
>>>>
>>>> There is also no secret discussions that is just absurd. Is it possible
>>>> the ADs and Chairs individually don't support specific work, sure, but
>>>> that's another matter and their right, and fair too. The objective is
>>>> to get the WG excited technically about specific work, and that makes
>>>> the Chairs and ADs get a buzz.
>>>>
>>>> Reqarding industry doing defacto standards. Yes this is happening now
>>>> with IPv6 Transition and several mechanisms are being deployed now that
>>>> are way ahead of the IETF. That will correct itself between the market
>>>> and the IETF. At times the market leads, but usually the IETF is in
>>>> synch with the curve, but not on time. But, v6ops is doing everything it
>>>> can to meet time-to-market and I for one applaud all of us here for that
>>>> we are getting real work done and on time. As you know I am very pro
>>>> defacto standards and solutions when the IETF don't get it and a large
>>>> number of implementers do. We just move forward in industry and keep
>>>> sending data to this body called the IETF. The IPv6 Forum is exactly
>>>> from the IETF moving to slow and in 1999 implementors took matters into
>>>> their own hands and now the IPv6 Forum is a world wide deployment body
>>>> that clearly can support defacto standards and with task forces that are
>>>> part of the IPv6 Forum across the planet. That is what happens when any
>>>> standards body is to slow and does not meet the needs of the market.
>>>>
>>>> I read every mail on this list and a few others and you have not been
>>>> treated unfairly at all, but your work has not reached consenus on this
>>>> list that I can see as working group items. That does not mean it is
>>>> not good work but maybe not work in the IETF, as a question? Ask your
>>>> self is it a protocol, operational tool that can be standard without
>>>> forcing implementation of protocols through configuration, a best
>>>> current practice, etc.? And most important "what problem does your work
>>>> solve"?
>>>>
>>>> What I have found with my work in the IETF when it stalls it is usually
>>>> there was no consensus on the problem it solves or there needs to first
>>>> be discussion of everyones assumptions. For example, I believe many
>>>> customers will simply shut off IPv4 on a dual IPv4/IPv6 subnetwork and
>>>> cascade that policy expediently as a transition strategy across all
>>>> their other subnetworks until the entire customers Intranet or Internet
>>>> is IPv6 dominant with only pockets of legacy IPv4 for transition.
>>>> Educating all why and how is what I am doing now and once they see that
>>>> then solving the problem can move forward. I also think most customers
>>>> now will go get IPv6 prefixes and 6to4 is highly questionable as widely
>>>> used for the transition and that is a new change in the market some of
>>>> us have learned directly. These are just examples of others who have
>>>> the same problem and I don't think it is because of secret meetings in
>>>> the IETF.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the chairs or ADs warrant your mail and its unfair as one
>>>> working group members input these chairs work their ass off and do what
>>>> they can to keep things moving. Now if they don't listen or ignore
>>>> consensus I will be the first to throw tomatoes, but I don't see that in
>>>> this specific case.
>>>>
>>>> P.S. Pekka - I still do not agree with you about 70% of the time :--)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> /jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Jonne Soininen
>>> Nokia
>>>
>>> Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
>>> E-mail: jonne.soininen@nokia.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************
>> 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.
>>
>>
> --
> Jonne Soininen
> Nokia
>
> Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
> E-mail: jonne.soininen@nokia.com
>
>
**********************************
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.