Re: Issue on the SCTP draft]

Patrick Droz <dro@zurich.ibm.com> Tue, 25 November 2008 13:37 UTC

Message-Id: <TUE.25.NOV.2008.143721.0100.>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:37:21 +0100
From: Patrick Droz <dro@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM Research Division
Subject: Re: Issue on the SCTP draft]
Comments: cc: Weiming Wang <wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms030705030606030500070407"


-------- Original Message --------
Weiming,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Droz" <dro@zurich.ibm.com>
> Weiming,
> 
> it was a poll on the list without objections and therefore became a WG 
> document. 
> Re:It was an incomplete process.
What was incomplete? The agreement was to make a poll on the list and in
case there is no objection the document is a WG document. This what
happened some time back.


> What kind of problems do you have in accepting that. 
> Re: The problem is the process is unacceptable to me.
> For more background, I think we just need more discussion on the TMLs.
> I do have had a discussion with Jamal during Czeck 68th IETF meeting
> Mar 2007 on TMLs, mentioning that my acceptace of things like SCTP as
> TML WG item is only the time when there should be other TMLs that are
> easier to be deployed at the same time accepted, in order for more
> implementations able to go ahead easily.

You seem to be the only one feeling like this. I go no other objections
so far.

>What is the purpose of starting this discussion now? 
> Re: I have already had the question when last year I suddenly saw the
> ietf marked SCTP draft. The purpose is I hope processes for the WG
> should be more conventional for our later work. I remember years ago
> Jamal had a hope that the WG should not be like some big company's
> home. I agree this well, I just hope the WG should not be big or small
> company's home, rather all the participants' home, by means of good
> conventions obeyed.

I do not get this. In case you mean my company than I have to say my
company has zero interest in the output of the ForCES anymore we moved
out of that space several years ago!

> BTW, although not very strictly related to your this question, I have
> to mention that, since last year, my research team seemed become hard
> to contribute to the WG, even if we'd actually like to. Firstly, my
> team's implementation is greatly affected and blocked by the current
> TML decision. Secondly,the TML Service Primitive draft work was
> temporarily halted by Jamal's thought. Thirdly, now it seems most of
> the things on the WG are done by IETF meetings, rather than by the WG
> list. Owing to many reasons, we are jsut hard to attend them very
> often.

Your own situation is not determining how the WG is making progress. I
have not attended the last couple of meetings either and I am mainly
doing the ForCES stuff in my spare time as it is not supported by my
company anymore. And please don't blame me or the WG for you own situation.

>The only goal the chairs have is to make sure that the WG is making progress and nothing else.
> Re: Patrick, I just think the WG Charter is different from homeworks
> that should be strictly scheduled. In order to make the ForCES the
> standards really acceptable to enterprises and able to be widely
> deployed, we may sometimes be patient.

Our ADs are making sure that we stick to our agenda. We were several
times already challenged because of slow progress. I rather see
contributions to the WG. For me the discussion about SCTP TML be a WG
document is closed.

Regards,
Patrick

Thanks,
Weiming
> 
> Regards,
> Patrick
> 





-- 
  Dr. Patrick Droz                  | dro@zurich.ibm.com
  IBM Zurich Research Laboratory    | http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~dro
  Saumerstrasse 4                   | Tel. +41-44-724-85-25
  CH-8803 Rueschlikon/Switzerland   | Fax. +41-44-724-85-78