Issue on the SCTP draft

"Wang,Weiming" <> Sat, 22 November 2008 20:30 UTC

Message-Id: <SUN.23.NOV.2008.043019.0800.>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:30:19 +0800
From: "Wang,Weiming" <>
Subject: Issue on the SCTP draft
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

By carefully checking back the archives and meeting minutes, something on the SCTP draft seems go in this way by the time axis: 

1. In July 10, 2006 IETF66 meeting,  after draft authors made a presentation,  WG Chair asked authors to send their 'making the draft a WG document' request on to the list to "feel the pulse of the members" .  Pls see
2. In 10 Jul 2006 16:06:51,  draft authors sent to the list "Request: SCTP as TML" message.

3. In 10 Jul 2006 17:38:52, a supporting pulse back from the list.

4. No more pulses,  and till the end of  Nov 2006 IETF 67 meeting,  also no assessment result from WG chair (maybe owing to obvious lack of  responses).  

5. In 8 Nov 2006, authors themselves ( Note that not WG Chair) declared on the list that they will submit the draft as a WG document.

6. Nothing happened to the draft, so still no assessment result from WG

7. In March 18-23, 2007 IETF 68 meeting, some discussions on TMLs, but no one ever thought the draft a WG document. 

8. Long silence on the list on the draft

9. In July 22-27, 2007 IETF 69 meeting, still no one ever mentioned the draft.

10. In  November 9, 2007,  the draft was suddenly appeared as a WG document. No one could ever know this happened via the list, because there was no announcement from Chair, nor a hint sent to the list by authors. ( I personally noticed this even till Nov. when I checked the ForCES Charter). Why it was done so personally?

Above time spots are what I'v seen for the SCTP draft. If anything that I missed, pls just let know to the list.  

While based on above time axis, I have the following questions:
1. Was it a real 'poll' ?  I personally thought it was just a 'request' solicitation initiated by authors, rather than a poll to make decisions initiated by WG chair.  Moreover, I'v never seen a request could be sent by means of 'counting objections'. That means those who missed the infomation all became pros for your request. 
2. For the whole process, we just can not see any statement from Chair clearly declaring the acceptence as a WG document.
3. Obviously, draft authors have done some actions that only WG chair can do. Although such actions did not actually take effect in the end, it might lay pressure on WG chair.