Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic Optimization (alto)

["Jan Seedorf" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Lakshminath,

> I left Dublin thinking, out of the p2pi efforts, TANA will be 
> a WG (there was strong consensus and agreement on the problem 
> space and what needs to be done) and ALTO may have another 
> BoF.  As of today, there is a WG proposal on the table for 
> ALTO and in a different area from where we started; TANA is 
> on the BoF wiki.
> 
> Next, my experiences in the past on BoFs that did not have 
> consensus have been dramatically different from what is 
> happening on ALTO.  The IESG has really even refused to allow 
> another BoF much less directly started creating a working 
> group.  So, it makes me wonder whether the rules have 
> recently been changed or whether they are selectively applied.

I am not an IETF veteran, but from my experience it is perfectly ok for post-BoF discussions to happen on the mailing list and for these discussions to resolve some of the controversial issues at the BoF. I think this is was happened with ALTO. I also think that the IESG has been following the discussions on the mailing list and the WG Review is in fact a reaction to the agreement which has been found on the mailing list regarding the disagreements from the BoF.

Just my two cents ...

 - Jan  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Lakshminath Dondeti
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:10 AM
> To: Lisa Dusseault
> Cc: [e-mail]; IESG IESG; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic 
> Optimization (alto)
> 
> On 10/10/2008 12:21 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > Lakshminath and Vidya,
> > 
> > Vijay, Enrico and Stefano have said what I was going to say (e.g. 
> > below)
> > -- as sponsoring AD for this charter I've been following the WG 
> > discussion, working with the rest of the IESG, and talking 
> to people 
> > to confirm that there's better consensus on the list, even if there 
> > was confusion at the BOF.  This IETF Last Call is also part of 
> > confirming whether there's now consensus.
> 
> Hi Lisa,
> 
> My concern can be put in really simple terms.  We have some 
> really very confusing processes and we seem to add to the 
> confusion and not make things simpler.
> 
> I left Dublin thinking, out of the p2pi efforts, TANA will be 
> a WG (there was strong consensus and agreement on the problem 
> space and what needs to be done) and ALTO may have another 
> BoF.  As of today, there is a WG proposal on the table for 
> ALTO and in a different area from where we started; TANA is 
> on the BoF wiki.
> 
> Next, my experiences in the past on BoFs that did not have 
> consensus have been dramatically different from what is 
> happening on ALTO.  The IESG has really even refused to allow 
> another BoF much less directly started creating a working 
> group.  So, it makes me wonder whether the rules have 
> recently been changed or whether they are selectively applied.
> 
> I am also confused by your use of the word consensus; you say 
> that you've "talked to people" to confirm that there's 
> "better consensus on the list," but also say that the charter 
> review is also part of the consensus process.  Shouldn't 
> there be a call for consensus?
> 
> > 
> > It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the 
> > solution. 
> 
> This is an interesting opinion.  May I translate that to mean 
> that there 
> is already a solution in the minds of the people who wrote 
> the charter?
> 
> Why then would we bother with the proposed requirements 
> effort, writing 
> down a problem statement and all the rest?  Why not put an 
> RFC number on 
> the solution?
> 
> It also makes me wonder what your opinion on the following from 2418.
> 
> " - Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an attempt
>        to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of 
> input from IETF
>        participants may be limited?"
> 
> > What would help with the charter, even now, is for people to 
> > write up proposals for the solution -- ideally in the form of 
> > Internet-Drafts.  
> 
> This seems to be starkly different from the process I know 
> of.  Are you 
> really suggesting that people come up with solutions to help with the 
> charter?  What problem are we solving?  What are the requirements? 
> Based on the proposal that was sent out, we won't have 
> consensus on all 
> of those until Oct 2009 or later.
> 
> Apr 2009: Working Group Last Call for problem statement
> Jun 2009: Submit problem statement to IESG as Informational
> Aug 2009: Working Group Last Call for requirements document
> Oct 2009: Submit requirements document to IESG as Informational
> 
> > I haven't yet selected chairs for the WG, so as you 
> > can imagine editors and authors aren't yet selected. 
> 
> > It would be most 
> > excellent to see some individual proposals before a 
> committee gets their 
> > hands on them :)
> 
> I am sorry Lisa, but I am really confused by your request for 
> proposals 
> before we even agree on the problem.  I am hoping for a clarification.
> 
> thanks,
> Lakshminath
> 
> > 
> > Lisa
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani 
> > <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > 
> >  ...
> > 
> > 
> >     And since the BoF, much has changed to narrow the scope of the
> >     charter down to more manageable pieces as well as establish a
> >     channel with IRTF to move certain aspects of the work there
> >     (as the timeline in my previous email indicated.)
> > 
> >         Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> > 
> >      
> > 
> >         My perception and my understanding of some of the dissenting
> >         opinions
> >         was that some of those need to be worked out before 
> creating a
> >         working group.
> > 
> > 
> >     But I believe that we have done exactly that: the list has been
> >     busy since Dublin on attempts to move the work forward 
> in a manner
> >     that is conducive to all participants.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> p2pi mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi
> 
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi