Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

Henk,

thanks, that's what you've said so far. My question is:

- Al says, agreement was to make ID -value-added-octets-02 an
  informational, and Al's interpretation is "as was written".
- now it is a WG draft and it continues to change.

Is that appropriate from your point of view? Reading your reply, I don't
understand whether you've clearly answered this. I don't see a need for
a fast reply, if you need time to think about it. My impression is, that
leaving that open may block the standardisation progress on the technical
issues behind that.

The issue I see is, if we continue to work on the problem and possible
solutions, the draft-documentation and functionality of the prototype
may continue to be adapted as well. The question then is, what's the
purpose of a second standards track document, if the very same solutions
may be found in the informational? I think, that's not what the WG
has agreed to do.

Of course the prototype may be enhanced by features, standard or proprietary,
after -value-added-octets has been published as informational.

Regards,

Ruediger


-----Original Message-----
From: Henk Uijterwaal [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:21 AM
To: Geib, Rüdiger
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt

Ruediger,

> could you clarify your idea of the process making value-added-octets an informational?

As I said before, I think it is good to have a document describing the prototype
developped by the authors, that has been reviewed by the entire WG for clarity
and completeness.  We do not agree on the problem that there is to be solved, we
don't agree either if this is the best solution, but I believe we agree that the
prototype solves something close to the actual problem.  That suggests, at least
to me, to make it an informational document that can be properly referenced in
the future.  Note that I have specifically never asked for consensus about the
problem statement or the solution chosen, just if the description is clear.


> I agree with Al and Yaakov that it is not appropriate incorporate features discussed
> under note well into an IPR protected solution. I don't think it is apropriate to continue to
> change technical features described in this publication before it's IETF stamped as informational .
> It is not relevant whether these changes are small. Apart from that the authors refuse to refer to
> other IETF work while they seem to integrate functionality resulting from this work into their
> prototype. If that's true (and it again doesn't matter whether changes are big or small), it's
> not agreeable.

I'm not sure if I understand this.  There is the prototype (with IPR), there are
suggestions made by others (under the note-well). The latter have been
incorporated into the prototype, but, as far as I understand, that doesn't
put them under the IPR.  In other words, we can still use those suggestions
in another solution when we come to that.  Or am I missing something here?

Henk

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
                                          http://www.uijterwaal.nl
                                          Phone: [phone]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
                                 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)