[Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5

avri@psg.com Sun, 24 October 2004 16:42 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA11165 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:42:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLlfO-0000hU-Kf for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:56:26 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLlOA-0005Sp-Sf; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:38:38 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLlNe-0005OR-5z for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:38:06 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10782 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:38:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: avri@psg.com
Received: from tla.crepundia.net ([] helo=report.tla-group.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLlav-0000d6-2t for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:51:49 -0400
Received: from [] (report.tla-group.com []) by report.tla-group.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id i9OGDPep032033; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:13:28 +0200
In-Reply-To: <128f01c4b9c0$fe9df280$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408> <1E526654-24BF-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417A23E6.7010504@zurich.ibm.com> <005b01c4b907$242b1790$020aa8c0@wwm1> <417AA8B6.1040601@zurich.ibm.com> <1098558745.1097.42.camel@jzny.localdomain> <CE5A3946-252D-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <128f01c4b9c0$fe9df280$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <0F5DC2E6-25DB-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:37:56 -0400
To: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, forces-protocol@ietf.org, hadi@znyx.com, Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5
X-BeenThere: forces-protocol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: forces-protocol <forces-protocol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/forces-protocol>
List-Post: <mailto:forces-protocol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>> On 23 okt 2004, at 15.12, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>>> so lets remove this from the query section
>>> -----
>>>        Editorial Note:  There is a debate on whether we should use a
>> done.
> It may be more fit to do so before we have decided it regarding this 
> issue.

As i said in an earlier note, i can always put things back in.  I don't 
actually remove these things on the first pass, I just comment them out 
in the xml files.  and if someone complains, I can uncomment them.  
Basically I am trying to find the rough consensus point - though I 
freely acknowledge that I can only recommend where i think that point 
is. At this point any issue that can't be resolved needs to go to the 
WG and the chairs for determination of the rough consensus.  Frankly I 
thought we had rough consensus on the issue.  It certainly seemed to be 
reflected in the decisions being made on the text.

At this point there are only 20 hours left before I need to submit the 
draft.  I have been reading the list rather faithfully and trying to 
understand which issues have been resolved and which have not.  I 
honestly thought this debate had been resolved.  If I make a mistake, 
and i acknowledge that i do make mistakes i will roll back the text. 
And since this is not the final version, anything can be changed - 
especially if/when we start to get some WG community feedback.

Note: if, my editorial judgments are disturbing, and I try to make as 
few as I think this group can bear, I will pass on the document to 
someone else. Having said that, I think it is time to start making 
decisions and bringing them to the WG who are, in point of fact, the 
owners of the draft.

Anyhow, over the next 20 hours I will try to remain available as much 
as possible to get a draft out that meets this team's rough consensus.

Incidentally I have now uncommented that note - i.e. it will show up 
again in 01-7 unless it gets resolved between then and now.

Another point.  I have not managed to do the work necessary to activate 
the issues database, but will try to do so before the IETF.  In my 
opinion, it is time to start moving these disagreements from the text 
into an issues database in an effort to drive this document to 
completion - our milestone is March 05 - only 5 months away at this 

also, how many of the team will be at the meeting.  We really should 
have a face to face session to resolve as many issues as possible.  I 
will be arriving in DC Saturday morning (for the HIP RG  seminar) and 
will remain in town until the following Saturday morning


Forces-protocol mailing list