Re: Issue on the SCTP draft]
"Wang,Weiming" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Tue, 25 November 2008 16:22 UTC
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:22:28 +0800
From: "Wang,Weiming" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Issue on the SCTP draft]
Comments: To: Patrick Droz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Patrick， I have no comment on your reply. thanks, Weiming ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Droz" <email@example.com> -------- Original Message -------- Weiming, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Droz" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > 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 | email@example.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