Re: Issue on the SCTP draft

["Wang,Weiming" <[e-mail]>]

Patrick，

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Patrick Droz" <[e-mail]>
> Weiming,
> 
> it was a poll on the list without objections and therefore became a WG 
> document. 
Re：It was an incomplete process.

> 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. 

>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.

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.

>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.

Thanks,
Weiming
> 
> Regards,
> Patrick
>