Re: [icnrg] CCNx Drafts - next steps

[Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]>]

I agree with Nacho. When a document stays as an individual contribution it is hard for the group to collectively contribute. WG acceptance does not mean putting it “in cement” it means that the group recognizes the contribution and will work on it. Many WG document at least in the IETF were greatly modified after going from individual to WG and further to RFC. I actually prefer to limit individual contributions as they less conducive to consensus and general approvals.

Marie-Jose Montpetit, Ph.D.
[e-mail]
@SocialTVMIT

> On Apr 14, 2015, at 4:05 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> The drafts are currently not RG work, they are individual contributions.   Adopting them would make them RG work.  Many WG/RG drafts start as individual contributions and get adopted as WG/RG documents, hence the word “adopt”.
> 
> Once the document is adopted, it will be a RG document and the RG can guide the development.  We are a RG, we are not producing standards. This is very explicit by the charter of the IRTF [1][2] and ICNRG.  The document would at most be Experimental.   This does not preclude any other document from being adopted in any way.  
> 
> If you feel that your protocol is not ready to be adopted, then continue working on it.  You are free to keep control (and maintain it as an individual contribution) or ask the group to adopt it (and take control).
> 
> These documents reflect the views of more than the authors.  They have received and adopted quite a bit of feedback.  We have merged (and removed) a number of items based on suggestions.   We are now looking for more active participation from the whole group.
> 
> When you talk about expressing disagreement it seems you imply a large part of the group has disagreed.  I’m not sure if you’re talking about disagreement from adoption or disagreement of the protocol.   In terms of disagreement of adoption, from the last meeting the sense of the room seemed to be overwhelmingly in favor of adoption.  On the list so far, from general replies to Laura’s email, it has been you and Alex.    
> 
> In terms of disagreement of the protocol itself, it’s not an issue.  A- many people agree with the protocol as is (having worked with us for over a year in the spec),  B- people with other protocols don’t agree (but so far we have been getting closer), C- some people are not sure and need more time to read the drafts, D- most people don’t care.   I would say that just by the number of people we have that agree on the protocol as is, it would be a good enough reason to adopt.  But, to top it off, adoption would actually give everyone a voice, even the people that disagree.    Non-adoption is like saying you don’t want to have a voice.  Again, this is not a final call, it’s adoption to continue working together as a group.
> 
> 
> Nacho
> 
> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2014 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2014>
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5743 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5743>
> 
> 
> --
> Nacho (Ignacio) Solis
> Protocol Architect
> Principal Scientist
> Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)
> [phone]
> [e-mail]
> 
> On 4/14/15, 12:04 PM, "MUSCARIELLO Luca IMT/OLN" <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I fail to understand how these drafts could be considered as RG work as opposed to an individual contribution.
>> To me, this  set of drafts is an individual contribution. 
>> 
>> Several drafts have been presented on the packet format, and no real agreement has been reached to continue
>> working together on a common draft. In this sense these drafts are not a RG contribution, de facto. 
>> 
>> >From a research point of view, I think that the disagreement we have all expressed has the merit to push
>> everyone to do more research on the different design choices the packet formats would imply. 
>> Which is a good think, IMO.
>> 
>> I also fail to understand the implications of adopting these documents as group drafts, as no one else would work on it
>> except one contributor. I might be missing something here though.
>> 
>> Luca
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 04/06/2015 07:02 PM, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Thank you - sorry for the mis-statement - I am new to IETF.  We took a sense of the room and people “hummed” that they were in favor of adopting the docs as an experimental platform (not exclusive):
>>> 
>>> Hums overwhelmingly agreed we should go forward with the adoption of the documents as an experimental option.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Laura
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 6, 2015, at 9:55 AM, David IMAP Mailstore <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Apr 6, 2015, at 9:49 AM, <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> For those that missed the ICNRG meeting in Dallas, we voted to adopt the CCNx protocol drafts as ICNRG drafts. 
>>>> No, we did not. We don't vote.
>>>> We took the sense of the room, which was to adopt the drafts as RG Drafts, as opposed to individual contributions.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, per IRTF procedures, no decisions are made definitively in meetings. They are taken by a poll on the mailing list, which has not yet occurred. I hope to get a message on this out to the list this week.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, I any of these messages, please be sure people are pointed to the IPR disclosure associated with them so peoe can assess what if any problems that poses.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks (chair hat on)
>>>> DaveO
>>>> 
>>>>> Please make sure that you take the time and read through the current set of drafts so you can provide feedback.
>>>>> 
>>>>> CCNx Semantics: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxsemantics-01 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxsemantics-01>
>>>>> This draft describes the semantics of the CCNx protocol independently of encoding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> CCNx Packet Format: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxmessages-01 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxmessages-01>
>>>>> This draft  specifies a Type-Length-Value (TLV) packet format and the TLV type and value encodings for the CCNx network protocol as specified in th CCNx Semantics document. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> For your reference, additional specifications have also been submitted:
>>>>> CCNx Labeled Content: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxlabeledcontent-00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxlabeledcontent-00>
>>>>> CCNx Content Object Chunking: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxchunking-00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxchunking-00>
>>>>> CCNx End-to-End Fragmentation: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxfragmentation-00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxfragmentation-00>
>>>>> CCNx Serial Versioning: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxserialversion-00 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxserialversion-00>
>>>>> 
>>>>> We would like to get a new set of drafts out for the next ICNRG meeting, so keep this in mind if you want to send feedback or contribute. The cut-off date for drafts is 2015-07-06. We would like to have the updates ready at least a week before to schedule meeting time as needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Many thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Laura
>>>>> ----
>>>>> Laura Hill 
>>>>> Manager, Documentation and Information Architecture
>>>>> Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)
>>>>> [phone]
>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> icnrg mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg