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

[Al Morton <[e-mail]>]

At 06:29 AM 3/29/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>...
>   TWAMP Value-Added Octets
>   draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-01.txt
>
>Please review the draft and raise any issues by Monday, April 16, 2012,
>8:00 UTC.

Hi Henk and Matt,

When I read:
At 05:54 AM 1/24/2012, Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
>The authors of draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-02.txt
>have asked for this document to be published as an informational RFC,
>by the WG, with the goal of documenting the work done by them.

I wasn't happy with the informational-only approach,
but I figured that it was a decent compromise if the authors
published the Ericsson IPR-encumbered work by itself,
and then let the rest of the WG proceed with defining the problem
and deciding on a standards track solution.

No one else objected either, but then:

- The authors published -value-added-octets with a WG document filename
   (which confuses things, it has not represented WG consensus at
    any stage)
- The authors modified the draft to adopt the function
   of asymmetrical packet size test capability and possibly
   other functions identified in the problem statement draft
   (and in my talk at IETF-80 in Prague).
- The authors now claim to have simplified their protocol, after
   discounting the WG's comments on the complexity of their approach
   for about a year.

Adding features which they didn't suggest/invent, and reversing their
position on protocol complexity means that the current draft does not meet
the goal of "documenting work done by them", and instead lands in a
middle-ground of "partly addresses WG comments and the problem statement".
I don't think that's fair or useful.

So, I still have no objection if the WG documents the individual
draft-baillargeon-ippm-twamp-value-added-octets-02.txt (not -03 or other)
with *Historic* status prepared on the way to a WG consensus solution,
IF it means the WG can close the unproductive discussion on this draft.

To me, the authors have circumvented the WG process with their
current text, waving the "this is how the prototype works now" flag.
It takes benefit from contributions under Note Well, and includes
ideas of others contributed to the IETF IPPM WG which are not theirs.
I object to publishing the current text, and I note that a new IPR
disclosure is likely needed for it.

I also appreciate Yaakov's comment attached below, that the
Introduction's disclaimer describes an RFC Editor Stream submission,
which is yet another way that authors publish alternative ideas
outside the IETF Stream and remains a viable option for them.

regards,
Al

At 08:31 AM 4/1/2012, Yaakov Stein wrote:
>1) The new version clearly states :
>    This memo is the product of a working prototype. It does not
>    represent a consensus of the IETF community. The IETF community is
>    currently working on the problem statement and has not reached
>    consensus on the preferred method for measuring capacity metrics.
>    ...
>    This memo describes the protocol used in the current working
>    prototype implementation of the Value-added octets feature in the
>    Ericsson lab. The prototype has been tested in real network
>    environments. The conclusion from these tests is that the Value-added
>    octets feature is able to enable estimation of metrics such as
>    available path capacity in both the forward and reverse direction of
>    the network path.
>
>This is the definition of an individual submission track document,
>not a document to be submitted to the IESG as a product of the IPPM WG.
...