Re: Issue on the SCTP draft

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com> Tue, 25 November 2008 03:53 UTC

Message-Id: <MON.24.NOV.2008.225313.0500.>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:53:13 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Subject: Re: Issue on the SCTP draft
Comments: To: Weiming Wang <wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Weiming Wang <wmwang@mail.zjgsu.edu.cn> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----

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

Unfortunately, this is not just ForCES specific;  It is an issue in
all standards
which involve input from many people.
Worst hit are hardware standards typically.
It is a management balancing act choosing on when and what to implement, how
to minimize impact of a moving target etc.

> Jamal, remember that the SP was what you push the most. Every thing
> you listed above seemed all no problems before.

Yes, but: let me repeat my reasoning (and ive done this many times
before, including last email):
There is a _strong_ perception problem at the IETF with us publishing APIs.
I  realized the cost of continuing and publishing at the time or in the
short term outweighs the benefit of the WG making progress because it was/is
a distraction. Therefore I asked for us to pause on publishing SP so we can
get the core WG items out. The SP work should continue after the 3 core docs
get published - in my opinion perhaps in the form Joel had wisely
advised earlier
of "service semantics".

> 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.

When the WG is formed you promise to deliver the charter on a schedule.
True -  giving up is one choice.
A good reason to do so is discovering the problem is not solvable
It would be rude (or not honorable) to give up otherwise after the WG
has been formed.
Failure to deliver could result in  IESG booting us out because we are
not making
progress. The chair being the manager tries to make sure progress is being made.
I think this is what Patrick was trying to say.
In my opinion, It is like homework  because of deadlines and the fact there
are consequences involved.  You are a professor and likely have dealt
with students
who dont deliver their papers on scheduled time for no good reason.
Anyways, Weiming i think we should end beating on this issue.

cheers,
jamal