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 > > > > > > >
- Re: Issue on the SCTP draft Wang,Weiming
- Re: Issue on the SCTP draft Weiming Wang
- Re: Issue on the SCTP draft Wang,Weiming
- Re: Issue on the SCTP draft Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: Issue on the SCTP draft Patrick Droz
- Re: Issue on the SCTP draft Jamal Hadi Salim
- Re: Issue on the SCTP draft Avri Doria
- Re: Issue on the SCTP draft Jamal Hadi Salim
- Issue on the SCTP draft Wang,Weiming