Re: [paws] agenda uploaded

[<[e-mail]>]

Pete,

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

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.

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.


-          Gabor



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/~presnick/>

Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]