Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Wed, 23 July 2014 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netext@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12281B2A18 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5A5cVYpYjDU8 for <netext@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9BB11A0AE7 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C31F88118 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-b444.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-b444.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.180.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331151368082 for <netext@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 2014 10:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53CFF515.9040706@innovationslab.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:47:01 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: netext@ietf.org
References: <CFF53D90.14FE0B%sgundave@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFF53D90.14FE0B%sgundave@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9pmlgWrNuAbhdM9il06AUvnupjLtEV9qg"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netext/0eb-gu6aLwq3I1MB-E3kz6I3DXw
Subject: Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft
X-BeenThere: netext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for discusion of extensions to network mobility protocol, i.e PMIP6. " <netext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netext/>
List-Post: <mailto:netext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext>, <mailto:netext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:47:10 -0000

All,
     Consider the following to be spoken with my AD hat firmly on my head...

On 7/23/14 1:30 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote:
> Behcet,
> 
> 
>>
>> I already did. You can check in the archive. I asked many questions
>> and received no replies.
>>
>> I read Rev. 10 sentence by sentence. I don't think anybody else did
>> this in the WG.
>> I can claim that I know flow mobility and I can show my credentials.
>>
>> My assessment was that the only way to incorporate my comments is to
>> edit Rev. 10 completely and that's what I did.
> 
> 
> Its not about your credentials. I don't understand your approach of
> editing a WG document.
>  
> Chairs can comment, but as a WG member I'm not comfortable  with you or
> any one else editing the document and posting the same with out WG review;
> Why do we have a Editor then ? Editor may choose to accept all your
> changes, that's at his discretion.  Please talk to Carlos.

Providing a complete re-write of a WG draft is not only inappropriate,
it is disruptive.  Please read that sentence again.

The WG has an issue tracker set up for this document.  It appears that
the document editor and chairs are using it to track issues raised.  Why
should these concerns be handled any differently.

Perusal of the mailing list archives and the minutes of previous netext
meetings reveals no support within the WG for these perceived defects.
That could be a result of a disagreement with the concerns raised or
could a result of people not understanding the concerns.

Regards,
Brian