Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

["James Kempf" <[e-mail]>]

Behcet,

>   The assessment for IP Paging was supposed to be announced at WG
> meeting in SLC. And it did. The minutes of this meeting contained
> strange text in paging part because the paging part talking or
> presentation was done by Kempf and the minutes was also taken by
Kempf.

This is incorrect. The minutes were taken by La Monte Henry Piggy
Yarroll.

> Kempf did the talking based on the slides, almost literally he was
> reading from the slides. The slides were not posted despite several
> repeated request that I made on the mailing list.

This is incorrect. As I stated in my reply to your email of yesterday,
the slides were sent to the IESG Secretariat on Monday, and
should appear shortly in the archives.

>   Because of the admitted irregularity, i.e. one draft was eliminated
by
> sparing no comments I declared the assessment results moot.
>   Kempf now wishes to correct this irregularity by adding an
additional
> text which includes his own comments and does not include other's
> comments, e.g. I made an assessment of draft-renker and no one seems
to
> have commented otherwise.

The only assessment I saw of yours about the current WG draft was
that it was "a mess." This is hardly enough to base a reevaluation of
the decision on.

>   Kempf wishes to keep adding some new criteria , e.g. remove some
text
> from the the assessment I-D all designed to keep his own personal
> conclusion of the assessment process.

Internet Drafts that are WG items are subject to review by the working
group and editing.
That is what the IETF is all about. This goes for every WG draft,
including
the current paging protocol WG draft :-). Some WG members have made
comments about the assessment draft, these need to be incorporated.

>   The fact is that the assessment team was composed of volunteers.
Their
> evaluation is similar to evaluating papers submitted to a conference
by
> some anonymous referees. In such cases the acceptance/ rejection is
made
> based on the marks given by the referees, so how come we ignore the
> marks?

Here you are way off base. This is a complete misinterpretation of what
the IETF is all about. The IETF is not an academic conference, despite
what many people these days seem to think. It is a standards body, and
the
decisions made will have great economic impact, that is why they need to
be weighed
and judged, and agreed upon by the entire WG. The assesment teams
results are subject to WG concensus like every other IETF decision.

> The marks are very consistent with the way the assessment team
> was selected and the assessment was conducted. So we argued that
> draft-renker must have been declared the worst based on these marks.
>   How should the assessment team be formed otherwise? I think that the
> people with recognized expertise in IP Paging should have been
consulted
> as they do in MIP WG. There are such people. These are the issues I
> wanted to discuss with Kempf when I asked him to call me or give his
> phone number so that I can call. He refused.
>   IP Paging can not be equivalent to what Kempf knows of it, it is
much
> more  than that.
>

Behcet, these are personal remarks and are completely out of order.
As I have explained three times within the past two days on email,
the decision to select the current WG draft was made by Pat
and myself, based on the assessment team's analysis and our
judgement. I did not act alone in this matter

Your remarks up until now, including your email from yesterday
(which I have attached with my responses), indicate to me that your
source of
discontent was based on the following two items:

1) Your unhappiness with the process. I posted some text
on that yesterday. Your comments indicated that there
was still some confusion about the ranking system,
so I've agreed with the suggestion of some other
WG members to remove the numerical ranking.

2) Your unhappiness that your draft was not
properly judged.

Do you have any further comment on 1? If not,
then I will make the changes to the assessment draft
that were suggested by the WG members
and yourself.

As for 2, well, what can I say? You know
the reasons why your proposal was rejected,
and I am really sorry that you are unhappy
about it, but I don't see a groundswell of
comment from other WG members recommending
we accept your proposal.

I've made every effort to be accommodating
and invite you to continue participating
in this process, yet you continue to
try to disrupt further progress. If you
are still unhappy, I suggest you file
a grievence action with the IESG and
leave the WG in peace so that we can get
about the business of working on the
Seamoby paging protocol!


            jak

--- Begin Message ---

Behcet,

> 1. This text is not consistent with the minutes and the slides on
which
> your presentation was based at WG meeting in IETF 52.

The text I posted was my recollection, confirmed by Pat and
Allison, about the process we went through to make the decision.
There was a lot more detail than in my slides, because I wanted
to make sure that the authors of the proposals that were not
selected understood the decision process thoroughly. To the extent
that material from the slides was covered, I believe it is consistent.
For
example, the last paragraph cites a few examples of good
features in the various drafts that we would like to see in
the final result.Of those, only the security features from
draft-ohba were not on the slides, and that was an oversight
on my part, for which I apologize.

> 2. Regarding newly introduced comments on draft-guri, how come an
aspect
> that is good to have in the final draft becomes the reason for
rejection
> to select it?
>   Since you made no comments on draft-guri at SLC I could not raise
this
> question there, sorry about that :)

As I have told you before on this list, and as was stated in the
text I posted, draft-guri deals only with supporting L2 paging.
This is too limited to be the basis for the Seamoby IP paging protocol.
The text states that we want to see the ideas in draft-guri incorporated
into the final Seamoby protocol, and, as I have also told you before
on this list, we are working on
trying to organize a L2 Triggers BOF in Minneapolis so we can
discuss the kind of L2 triggers that are discussed on page 6 of
draft-guri. Seamoby is not the right place for this kind of work,
but we are trying to get one set up, and the L2 triggers work
for paging in draft-guri could be an important contribution. If, of
course,
you decide to participate.

> 3. The comments on hmipv6 belong to you personally, please check the
> slides on WG document status of MIP WG, you should be able to see the
> official opinion of WG chairs of MIP WG. I think that it is a serious
> problem to state strong opinions on the business of other WGs
especially
> if they are flawed.
>

I don't understand this comment. There is currently a draft,
draft-ietf-mobileip-lmm-requirements-00.txt, in the MIP
WG that outline requirements for an LMM solution. This
draft has not yet gone through WG Last Call, nor through
IETF Last Call, and so it does not yet have an RFC number.
That means that LMM is not yet out of the requirements phase.
This is what I said. We can't base the Seamoby paging
protocol on a protocol in another WG that isn't yet out
of requirements phase. The other WG might go through
the same kind of requirements assessment process for
competing protocols we've gone through
and come up with another protocol instead of HMIPv6
as the selected LMM protocol. Where would that leave
us?


> 4. The text does not mention the simple sum of the marks given to each
> draft?
>

A simple sum shows nothing. How should one rate under- versus
over-specification? In some cases, underspecification can be
a good thing, in other cases not. Same with overspecification.

In retrospect, I see now that putting numbers on these was a mistake.
It led people to believe that one could simply sum the numbers
and come up with a decision. Unfortunately, it was not so easy.
You can be assured that I will never use that technique again.

>   In short this text adds to the controversy failing to resolve
> anything.Regardless of what people say the conclusion is not going to
> change, right? Then why ask opinion of WG members? Is this normal? I
do
> not think such a system can be maintained.
>
>

Any such decision is always subject to WG concensus.
Unfortunately, the only voice we are hearing on the mailing list
right now is yours. One voice isn't enough for concensus, nor
is text from a private email forwarded and posted apparently without the
author's permission. Goodness knows, we have enough vocal
people on this list. It took us a year to get CT requirements
done (and we still don't have them in IESG Last Call!) because
everybody had an opinion. If I were seeing some of these people, who
were not authors of competing proposals coming forward and
saying that we should change the decison, it would be another
matter.

                    jak


_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

--- End Message ---