RE: [Seamoby] Section 5.2 in CT Requirements

James:

 Frankly this discussion is getting silly - he said, she said.
You may speculate forever what did or did not transpire, but I recall
clearly the discussion, which included Allison, and the decision was
to defer the work on a transport requirements until we started working
on a solution. Note well, that this decision was made in order to get
the requirements completed, which is the same goal you strive for.

 So, let's move on. If the IESG has commented that this section is
inappropriate, or if the wg believes that it is inappropriate, then
let's change it.

 And so, we have three choices:

   1. Leave the section as is and see if the IESG buys the logic or not.
      (I personally think the IESG is smart enough to realize the complexity
       of the problem and the cart and horse situation we are dealing with
       here).

   2. Remove the section entirely
      (which I don't think will fool anyone)

   3. Attempt to resolve the issue
      (The last debate went on for, oh, about six months)

If this is truly up to the wg, then perhaps you should as the wg which
option
is preferred.

Gary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@docomolabs-usa.com]
> Sent: July 19, 2002 09:04
> To: Pat R. Calhoun; Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1; seamoby@ietf.org
> Cc: mankin@psg.com
> Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Section 5.2 in CT Requirements
> 
> 
> Pat,
> 
> > I know that there was concern by the IESG on this very 
> topic, and the idea of
> > the above text was a compromise with the area director, who 
> was going to
> > initiate a discussion with the transport directorate. 
> Unfortunately, this
> > never occured, and the text remained. Allison had suggested 
> that we continue
> > with the non-transport discussions and that this topic will 
> resurface again
> > in the future.
> >
> 
> I don't think Allison intended that the document go to the 
> IESG with this text
> in it, though I have not had an opportunity to speak with her 
> about it. But
> ultimately
> she is not responsible for the working group documents, that is the
> working group's responsiblity. We should have pulled that 
> text out before we
> sent it to the IESG, and, ideally, had something to replace 
> it. If, at that
> point, the IESG had a technical disagreement with our 
> proposed requirement,
> then we would have heard back.
> 
> > The question is whether this can occur after the document 
> can be published
> > (perhaps without the section).
> >
> 
> I think we at least have to propose a requirement, which is 
> what the text I sent
> was intended to do.
> 
>             jak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Seamoby mailing list
> Seamoby@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
> 