Re: [paws] agenda uploaded

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Comments inline:

On 11/2/12 12:17 PM, [e-mail] wrote:

> This group is a bit special in a sense that many of the members are 
> new to ietf and they are coming from different backgrounds, eg ieee, 
> or the industry involved with white spaces, etc.
>
> I would not be surprised finding out that many people on this mailing 
> list believed that the use cases and requirements document was 
> approved and it was a done deal, as soon as they saw I forwarded it to 
> the iesg with publication requested action.
>
> People may not know that there is the concept of the AD in IETF, that 
> ADs usually/always have comments and can send back the documents to 
> the wg, and the wg is supposed to address those comments, etc.
>
> This is not to say that we do not want to go by the rules, but people 
> sometimes need more explanation.
>

Absolutely understood. I certainly did not intend my message to be in 
anyway interpreted as saying that the WG is doing something wrong with 
regard to my comments; indeed, that part was solely a push to say, "If 
the WG wishes to discuss these comments, we should start that discussion 
on the list." More importantly, as you say:

> I sent the document to iesg on Aug31st, you came back to the list with 
> your comments 2 months later...
>

Yes, for this again I must sincerely apologize. Far beyond my average 
for responding to requests to publish, and this again is why I did not 
wish to express anything wrong with the WG not discussing these 
comments: I cannot expect that I will be so late in providing my 
comments and then the WG turn around and start discussing within 2 
weeks. So again, I am not worried about that.

> ...without specifying that these are the AD comments and the wg is 
> requested to address them, otherwise the publication process cannot 
> continue. People might have thought these are the comments from an 
> outsider, why to address them.
>

Ah, yes, I should explain more: I need to be prepared to bring this 
document to the IETF list for Last Call as well as bringing to the IESG 
for IESG Evaluation. In its current form, I am afraid I will get large 
pushback from each of those bodies, so I think the WG should consider 
making some changes. That said, if the WG can give me the ammunition I 
need to defend the document in its current form, that will be OK as 
well. But either way, we do need to work through my comments.

> And many people interested in that document moved forward, the editors 
> were let go from their employer, etc, so it is difficult to get people 
> re-involved.
>

Yes, that is going to be tricky. We'll see what we can figure out.

> This might be the reasons why you did not get feedback to your 
> comments. And this is why I reserved a bit of time in our F2F for this.
>

Completely understood.

> Some background info on how did we end up with those use cases in the 
> document:
>
> There were people coming from different SDOs, like 802.11, 802.22, and 
> some others, with their use cases; which from system functionality 
> point of view differ, but the requirements to the protocol between the 
> master and the db are the same. We had this discussion in the group 
> and people said this document should document the use cases for white 
> space usage, even though they result in the same reqs for the 
> protocol. By not including some of the use case, some people felt that 
> we want to leave that specific technology out. Anyway, I wanted to see 
> if people are ok now to remove/merge some of the use cases to address 
> your comment. That was another reason I put it on the agenda.
>

Yes, I understand not wanting to leave things out. The idea of "merging" 
some of the use cases together I think would be a nice way forward. We 
should (as a group) discuss that.

> Finally, since we got a 2.5h slot and some documents I expected did 
> not come, we'll have time left for  other business, that is why the 
> last doc showed up on the agenda.
>
> Hope this answers your issues.
>

It more than answers my issues regarding my AD comments on the 
usecases-rqmts document. Of course, it does not address my other 
comments regarding the agenda.

Thanks for your reply.

pr


> *From:* ext Pete Resnick [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:06 PM
> *To:* Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [paws] agenda uploaded
>
> On 10/31/12 4:20 PM, [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-paws
>
>
> I have a few issues with this, at least as the final agenda. That 
> agenda says:
>
>
> PAWS working group meeting - Atlanta (IETF85)
> Thursday - November 8th @ 9am
> =========================================
>
> Administrivia (5 min)
> Blue sheets, minutes taker, jabber
>
> Note Well
>
> Agenda bashing
>
>
> Sure, the above is fine.
>
>
> WG doc status (20 min)
>
>
> No, this should not be done. We have all read the docs. If the status 
> needs to be summarized, post a message to the mailing list. There is 
> no need to waste time in the session doing this. Please, let's not 
> have this on the agenda.
>
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00.txt (Vince, 60min)
>
>
> This is fine, but I expect the author and the chairs to have a list of 
> issues in the document that *can not* be resolved on the list. I do 
> not have a problem with compiling that issues list week and not 
> finalizing it until the day of (I understand that we all have busy 
> schedules), but please try to collect these issues together on the 
> mailing list so if people want to talk about any particular issues 
> that are not otherwise noted, they will be able to identify them.
>
>
> time permitting: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-paws-secutity-00.txt 
> (Yang, 20 min)
>
>
> I have not seen serious discussion of this document on the list. What 
> is the purpose of this agenda item?
>
> Finally, the only feedback I got to my review of the usecases-rqmnts 
> document was from Peter Stanforth, but haven't heard anything further. 
> If folks aren't yet prepared to discuss this at the f2f, I will 
> understand. (My review did come in quite late.) But if people do want 
> to discuss it, you should post to the list so that the chairs know 
> what you wish to discuss. (I don't expect this to be added to the 
> agenda if there isn't more discussion on the list.)
>
> pr
>
> -- 
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>  <http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> paws mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
>    

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]