Re: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft

Hi Brian,

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Brian Haberman
<brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
> 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.
>

OK, understood.

> 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.

Please refer to the Issue Tracker page:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/report/1

I did have several issues there.
The editor replied some of them but I was not happy with them.

Unfortunately the Tracker has not been used since two years even
though this document is still around.
Some comments were made on the list and I received no reply.

>
> 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.
>

There at least two common concerns that I believe several people share:

where is the flow mobility protocol in the draft?

Why is LMA prefix allocation policy a use case for flow mobility protocol?

If the Editor does not understand these issues then he needs to read
the revision I mentioned.

I am withholding it as per your instructions, anybody can request it
I'll be happy to email it.

Regards,

Behcet

> Regards,
> Brian
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netext mailing list
> netext@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netext
>