Re: Issue on the SCTP draft

[Weiming Wang <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[e-mail]>
> 
> I will let Patrick respond - but i dont see why it is unacceptable.

I'm not sure if I'v made it clear. The following are questioins that make me unacceptable to the issue: 
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. 

> 
>> 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.
> 
> I sympathize with you. 
I don't think I'm the one need to be sympathized with on this issue. Only ForCES future use need to be sympathized. 

> 
>>  Secondly,the TML Service Primitive draft work was temporarily halted by
>> Jamal's thought.
> 
> As a co-author of the doc, I explained to you why - many times, Weiming.
> There have been a lot of complaints (whether right or wrong) that
> we/ForCEs are trying
> to do APIs. There have been claims that ForCES work should not be done at IETF
> at all because of this.
> Its a "branding" problem. The IETF is about protocols. It has been
> known to stand
> a few APIs - but in our case that stood out very visibly.
> My suggestion to you was we drop this until we get our core work done. It could
> then be pushed as an informational RFC. It was just too distracting.
Jamal, remember that the SP was what you push the most. Every thing you listed above seemed all no problems before. Maybe I shouldn't have accepted your propose on my writing the draft and especially being as the first author. 

> 
>> Re: Patrick, I just think the WG Charter is different from homeworks that should be strictly > scheduled.
> 
> The ADs would strongly disagree with you on this point.
Really? should the IETF do something always in a MUST even it cann't be done? I just think we at least have a 'giving up' choice. 

thanks,
Weiming