Re: Issue on the SCTP draft

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com> Sun, 23 November 2008 14:28 UTC

Message-Id: <SUN.23.NOV.2008.092821.0500.>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:28:21 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Subject: Re: Issue on the SCTP draft
Comments: To: "Wang,Weiming" <wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Weiming,

1) Patrick (and not I)  made the decision. Based on both response in a meeting
and limited response on the list. Yes, chairs can do this to move
forward things.
2) This was before i became chair.
3) It took a few months between that decision and the publication of
the draft with
"forces" prefix in it because of other WG priorities (as you know i
was very heavily
involved in getting the protocol rectified during that period).

Weiming, if you have another TML that you want to publish  - by all means
go ahead; there is room for more than one TML (as long as the prescribed
requirements are met).

cheers,
jamal

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Wang,Weiming <wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn> wrote:
> 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 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0607&L=FORCES&T=0&F=&S=&P=1569
>
> 2. In 10 Jul 2006 16:06:51,  draft authors sent to the list "Request: SCTP as TML" message.  http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0607&L=FORCES&T=0&F=&S=&P=1114
>
> 3. In 10 Jul 2006 17:38:52, a supporting pulse back from the list. http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0607&L=FORCES&T=0&F=&S=&P=1209
>
> 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.  http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0611&L=FORCES&T=0&F=&S=&P=4344
>
> 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.  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/07jul/minutes/forces.txt
>
> 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.
>
> thanks,
> Weiming
>
>
>
>
>
>
>