Re: [Raw] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-10: (with DISCUSS)

Hi John, et.al.,

Eve and I met today to discuss this exact point, and we recall talking about this many months ago with the DetNet chairs (Lou and Janos) and thought this might be an issue when the document hit the IESG. We have previously spoken to the authors as well, but we would need to mine through the previous meeting recordings to find evidence if required.

The reality is:
• LDACS came to the IETF because there is no other preferable/relevant SDO (authors please confirm).
• LDACS came to RAW because of the words “Reliable” and “Wireless”.

From the chairs perspective, the document may well make more sense as an Independent Submission, as we understand the intent of the authors is to establish an LDACS standard.

Once standardised, we believe there is interest in the RAW working group to develop some kind of RAW-over-LDACS protocol stack, hence no-one has objected strongly to its presence in the proceedings of the working group to date.

Although there hasn’t been extensive conversation captured, there has been feedback from the WG, and 16 draft updates in response to comments and reviews, and the working group believes the document is in suitable condition to be published, whatever the stream.

One question that occurs to the chairs: given there is no other SDO standardizing LDACS, is "informational" the correct status?

We would be interested in the authors’ assessment of the situation, but please be advised that they are not as familiar with the inner workings of the IETF+IESG as some.

In conclusion, the chairs would suggest the authors pursue publication as an Independent Submission RFC, which we would hope to be a quick process as the document is more than ready.

Kind regards,

Eve & Rick
RAW co-chairs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthubert@cisco.com]
> Sent: 19 April 2022 17:36
> To: Alvaro Retana
> Cc: John Scudder; draft-ietf-raw-ldacs@ietf.org; raw-chairs@ietf.org; The IESG;
> raw@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Raw] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-10: (with
> DISCUSS)
> 
> Hello Alvaro
> 
> The reason why we wish to publish this document is that it becomes a source
> of good information from the matter expert tailored for IETF consumption.
> Like a good Comsoc paper could be.
> 
> This information is not readily available outside the IETF, because LDACS is
> very new.
> 
>  We do not mean to standardize anything with this RFC. We want to know
> better what’s below our layer. Ldacs is effectively one of the technologies
> RAW should support.
> 
> I totally buy that text could be needed on the LLC, if that’s the issue. More text
> on IPv6 feasibility over LDACS, sure. Still a desirable publication, even for
> defining IPv6 over Foo.
> 
> Keep safe,
> 
> Pascal
> 
> > Le 19 avr. 2022 à 18:10, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com> a écrit :
> >
> > On April 18, 2022 at 5:37:06 PM, John Scudder wrote:
> >
> >
> > John:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> >
> >> I’m a little unclear as to your reasoning, let me see if I have it right:
> >>
> >> 1. You’re making the assertion that it’s not possible for the IETF to “reach
> >> rough consensus on a document that describes someone else's
> technology”. As I
> >> understand it, you’re not citing an authority for this — you just think it’s
> >> self-evident, like the statement “rain doesn’t fall up”.
> >
> > When I read rfc2418, the discussions around consensus are related to
> > addressing disagreements about the topic the WG was chartered for.  In
> > general, that topic is technology development, so disagreements are
> > usually about design choices, deployment options, etc.
> >
> > In the case of LDACS, the WG is not chartered nor is working on
> > developing it.  While people may express concerns about the technical
> > choices made, any resolution would happen outside the IETF.
> >
> >
> > Also compelling to me is this question that I found as one of the
> > issues to consider when creating a WG (§2.1/rfc2418):
> >
> >     - Does the IETF have a reasonable role to play in the determination
> >       of the technology?  There are many Internet-related technologies
> >       that may be interesting to IETF members but in some cases the IETF
> >       may not be in a position to effect the course of the technology in
> >       the "real world".  This can happen, for example, if the technology
> >       is being developed by another standards body or an industry
> >       consortium.
> >
> > I believe this point is significant because it clarifies that the IETF
> > should not be working on technology developed elsewhere.
> >
> > To quote one of the authors: the "LDACS specification is written
> > within the framework of the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR)
> > project" [1].
> >
> >
> > [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/raw/iyext4Ub8MgUjNYYPE7XOPpq1Y0/
> >
> >
> > ...
> >> In any case we agree that the document should be published in some
> stream.
> >
> > Yes, I believe the Independent Stream would be appropriate.
> >
> >
> > Alvaro.
> >
> > --
> > RAW mailing list
> > RAW@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raw