Re: minutes and slides uploaded

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com> Fri, 21 November 2008 11:43 UTC

Message-Id: <FRI.21.NOV.2008.064308.0500.>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:43:08 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Subject: Re: minutes and slides uploaded
Comments: To: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang2001@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi Weiming,

The SCTP TML became a WG document  before any changes to WG chairs.
i.e. There were no shortcuts taken.
Request for it to become a WG document go as far as 2006 - so the standard
process was followed: An individual document was released. The WG was polled
to make it a WG item. Patrick made it a WG item.

On the issue of TML choices:
We can have more than one TML.  For the default TML we need a basic TML
that meets at minimal the basic requirements stated in the protocol draft.
Over the years, this has been an issue of contention with the ADs because they
have been very serious about meeting some of those requirements.
[Example both TIPC and UDP were not accepted in any form or shape for use as
TMLs because they do not pass the congestion control requirement.]

SCTP is already accepted as a WG item and is actively maintained by the authors
hence is a natural choice for the default TML.

cheers,
jamal


On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:28 AM, Wang,Weiming <wmwang2001@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not very familiar with all IETF conventions, but I just think it should be the same for I-D process in a WG,  regardless of the authors are themthelves the WG chair or not.
>
> thanks,
> Weiming
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang2001@hotmail.com>
>
>> Dear Chairs,
>>
>> A question is always surrounding me.
>>
>> Before the WG chairs was adjusted in 2007, we had quite discussions on the TMLs we may adopt, including TCP/TCP, TCP/UDP, SCTP. We never had a cousencus on the question.
>>
>> While since someday in 2007 after the WG chair changed, the SCTP TML draft suddenly became the WG document.
>>
>> My question is,
>> . via which process this happened?
>> . and how much have you got agreement on this TML?
>>
>> thanks,
>> Weiming