[mpls] Unsubstantiated Assertions on this Mailing List
Adrian Farrel <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com> Tue, 18 January 2011 16:36 UTC
Return-Path: <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95143A6FEC for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:36:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.750, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J6dNVXkbVuO3 for <mpls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usaga03-in.huawei.com (usaga03-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.220]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C3428C146 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 08:36:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (usaga03-in [172.18.4.17]) by usaga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LF8004NL8XHT6@usaga03-in.huawei.com> for mpls@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:39:18 -0600 (CST)
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) by usaga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LF800FCU8XGWE@usaga03-in.huawei.com> for mpls@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:39:17 -0600 (CST)
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:39:14 +0000
From: Adrian Farrel <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>
To: mpls@ietf.org
Message-id: <04a801cbb72e$3fa4e1a0$beeea4e0$@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-language: en-gb
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Thread-index: Acu3LiuFEznYfIytQVe8gGm30+XRnw==
Subject: [mpls] Unsubstantiated Assertions on this Mailing List
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 16:36:44 -0000
Hi, I have been discussing some of the emails on this list with the working group chairs, and we have agreed that I should respond to a couple of points. Don't feel bad if I didn't pick on something you said: my points apply to all similar cases. > Do you forgot that it is in IETF79 plenary in Beijing, the meeting was closed before 5 > minutes as it was planed though it was said that itu-t expert can present if time is > enough? I don't think this refers to the plenary meeting, but to the second MPLS working group meeting. I don't think we have ITU-T experts attending IETF meetings except by special invitation. I wasn't aware of any special invitations, so I think this refers to an IETF participant. It is worth noting that there were a number of people who asked to present on their drafts in the IETF meeting, but for which there was not time on the agenda. The working group chairs constructed the agenda according to the normal principles focusing on the working group charter, the current working group drafts, and the topics of discussion on the mailing list that they felt could most profitably be resolved through face-to-face discussion. There was no objection to the agenda when it was posted before the meeting; the only objection came some ten or fifteen minutes into the first of the two sessions that the WG held. Indeed, this period of objection and discussion of the agenda used up a considerable amount of time that might have been better used discussing drafts. During the interval between the two meetings, I convinced the WG chairs that they would allow an extra agenda item for one person from a service provider to present his company's view of MPLS-TP deployment scenarios and requirements if there was time. Although the meeting ran significantly behind schedule, it caught up with itself very suddenly, and it is true that the meeting closed almost exactly five minutes early without the additional presentation. The chairs judged that by the time the presenter was installed and had his slides up, he would have had less than four minutes to speak. That would clearly have been pointless for him and the working group. Therefore, we moved this presentation to the Routing Area working group where there was sufficient time - in the end the presentation and questions took twelve minutes. The meeting was attended by a good number of people who normally participate in the MPLS working group, so the message was not lost. The presentation attracted a number of useful questions from people who work at other service providers: something that would not have been possible within the MPLS working group schedule. > Do you forgot that IETF ignored ITU-T inputs on some RFCs before approving >them as RFCs such as RFC 5921 and draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survivability-framework > etc? This is quite a claim! Let us look at the two documents named here. == RFC 5921 was originally draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework == 2008-11-28 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-00 2009-06-30 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-01 2009-07-10 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-02 2009-08-28 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-03 2009-09-11 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-04 2009-09-25 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-05 2009-20-16 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-06 2009-10-16 Sent to ITU-T for early review (deadline 2009-11-09) 2009-11-10 Review comments received from ITU-T (further comments promised by 2009-11-25) (For action deadline 2010-01-02) 2009-12-22 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-07 2010-01-12 Response to ITU-T noting that no specific action was requested, and that no further comments had been received. Promise to consider all review comments. 2010-01-22 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-08 2010-01-29 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-09 2010-02-04 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-10 2010-02-04 Sent to ITU-T for review during WG last call. (deadline 2010-03-05 - twice the normal WG review period) 2010-02-05 Response to 2009-11-10 comments sent to ITU-T 2010-03-05 Review comments received from ITU-T (For action deadline 2010-04-12) 2010-04-02 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-11 2010-04-03 Sent to ITU-T for review during second WG last call. Last call strictly limited to discussion of resolution of issues raised in previous last call. (deadline 2010-04-17)s 2010-04-06 Response to 2010-04-12 comments sent to ITU-T 2010-04-07 IETF last call starts 2010-04-19 Review comments received from ITU-T (For action deadline 2010-05-27) 2010-04-21 IETF last call completes 2010-05-05 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-12 2010-05-06 IESG evaluation starts 2010-05-20 IESG telechat 2010-05-24 Document approved for publication as RFC 2010-06-24 Spontaneous further review from ITU-T (For action deadline 2010-07-30) 2010-07-09 RFC 5921 published 2010-07-27 Response to 2010-07-27 review comments Minor comments that were previously communicated informally had already been accepted during RFC Editing. Major comment were too late for acceptance. Correct way forward explained. 2010-08-31 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nni-uni-00 2010-11-03 Sent to ITU-T for review during WG last call of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni. (deadline 2010-11-23) 2010-11-26 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nni-uni-01 (including change that will be requested in 2010-12-03 review) 2010-12-03 Review comments received from ITU-T. Only one minor typographical issue. (For action 2011-01-14) 2010-12-08 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nni-uni-02 2010-12-09 IETF last call starts 2010-12-23 IETF last call ends 2011-01-07 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nni-uni-03 2011-01-07 IESG evaluation starts 2011-01-15 Response to 2010-12-03 review comments. Looking at the timeline and results here, I cannot say that either SDO was absolutely perfect in its adherence to dates or provision of the most useful information that is possible. However, it also appears to me that the right technical result has been achieved to the agreement of all parties. I find it simply ridiculous to suggest that the processing of this document somehow constitutes an attempt by the IETF to disregard ITU-T input. Instead, it suggests to me that the IETF is very willing to listen to the input and to make the necessary changes. == draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survivability-framework == * Full disclosure: I am an author of this document 2009-04-06 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-00 2009-10-25 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-01 2009-10-25 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-02 2009-10-26 Sent to ITU-T for early review (deadline 2010-11-21) 2009-11-09 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-03 2009-11-18 Review comments received from ITU-T (For action deadline 2010-04-30) 2010-03-08 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-04 2010-03-10 Sent to ITU-T for review during WG last call (deadline 2010-04-02) 2010-03-10 Disposition of 2009-11-18 review comments 2010-04-12 Review comments received from ITU-T (For action deadline 2010-04-25) 2010-04-19 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-05 2010-04-21 Sent to ITU-T for review during WG last call (deadline 2010-05-05) 2010-04-22 IETF last call starts 2010-05-05 Review comments received from ITU-T (For action deadline 2010-05-28) 2010-05-06 IETF last call ends 2010-06-04 Disposition of 2010-05-05 review comments 2010-06-20 draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survive-fwk-06 2010-06-24 IESG evaluation starts 2010-06-30 Spontaneous further review from ITU-T (For action deadline 2010-07-30) 2010-07-01 Document approved for publication as RFC 2010-07-01 Publication held by Area Director pending examination of 2010-06-30 review comments 2010-07-13 Document approved for publication as RFC 2010-07-16 Disposition of 2010-06-30 review comments Minor comments are largely already addressed or taken as changes in RFC Editor note. Major changes are too late and advice on how to proceed is given. 2010-07-22 ITU-T states no plan for further review and no plans to review disposition of 2010-07-16. (For action deadline 2010-08-31 but no action requested in the liaison) Again, the process was long, and the flow of information detailed. Again, the majority of input came very late in the process (some of it too late). Again, the IETF did what it could to speed the process as requested. Again, the IETF took on board review comments that would normally have been considered to have arrived too late. In these two cases, I have done the leg-work to collect the data and supply the details around the claims that were made. I find the necessity to "prove innocence" irksome, and the presence of unsubstantiated allegations on the mailing list offensive. Next time anyone wants to make a claim like this, could they please supply the details to back up their claims. Please note that the ITU-T experts participating in the reviews in the ITU-T did not bring their comments to the IETF as individuals for discussion on the mailing list despite many of them being subscribed. One might draw the conclusion that, rather than participating in the development of MPLS-TP within the IETF using the normal IETF process, these individuals were waiting until the last possible minute to raise their concerns and attempting to do so using the weight of the ITU-T rather than their own technical arguments - of course, I do not draw any such conclusions. > I am wondering whether IETF have already break the JWT agreement or not? If anyone wants to "wonder" this in public, they have an absolute responsibility to provide examples. IMHO the IETF has "gone the extra mile" by allowing comments outside the normal process, accepting comments via liaison from people who are normal WG participants, and by attempting to speed up the IETF process in order to achieve more rapid delivery as requested. As yet, I have seen no credible evidence provided that the IETF has broken the JWT agreement, and I find unsubstantiated suggestions that this has happen to be misleading. > It is right to accuse ITU-T on standardize G.tpoam in the liaison text with agreement. I have trouble parsing this sentence, but I think it is objecting to liaison text that says that the inclusion of protocol-specific text in a draft MPLS-TP Recommendation appears to be in violation of an agreement to carry out all MPLS-TP development within the IETF using normal IETF processes. To evaluate this, we must observe that SG15 agreed in plenary session ( http://www.itu.int/md/T09-SG15-R-0004/en) to accept the recommendations of the JWT that IETF development would be done in the IETF following normal IETF process. There may be many different personal opinions about where protocol development should be done, but it is hard to argue with the fact of the agreement. > We have already violated our commitments under the JWT agreement > multiple times This is an opinion, but there is no substance provided. I note that the author counts himself as part of the problem, but does not say exactly what he did wrong. This type of statement is not helpful to reasoned discussion. > The LS is now stating that although the IETF is not commited to > deliver to ITU-T what it was promised in the JWT agreement This is also an opinion, but I can find nothing in the LS that makes any such statement. Instead of the assertion, it would have been really helpful if the poster had pointed to the specific text that was a problem. To the contrary, the liaison makes a specific statement of commitment to the development of MPLS-TP. - - - - - - Now, I am quite happy that people should discuss the workings of the MPLS working group and the IETF in general (so far as it impacts on the MPLS working group) on either of the MPLS working group's mailing lists (mpls or mpls-tp). But I am not happy that history and facts are misrepresented by accident or on purpose. Therefore, I call on everyone on the mailing list to carefully check their facts and substantiate their arguments before posting to the list. There is no reason why discussions of process should be subject to any less technical rigour than discussions of technical issues. Likewise, I call on all people with an interest in MPLS-TP to participate in the technical discussions on the mailing list. Objections to working group documents are valid and welcome, but they must be reasoned technical discussions: there is no point in saying "I prefer X", you need to say "Y is broken because..." I also request that these discussions take place as early in the cycle as possible: coming with a technical opinion at the time of working group last call is at best a frustration to everyone concerned, but may also be interpreted poorly when the comments come from someone who is subscribed to the mailing list and has a known strong interest in the technology. Thank you, Adrian (as AD)
- [mpls] Unsubstantiated Assertions on this Mailing… Adrian Farrel