Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

Hello Prabhakar,
  I do not think that anybody (myself or Yoshi who made this point 
first) claimed that higher marks indicated better protocol.
  What I said is if there is quite a large discrepancy in the marks 
received which is the case this time (72 versus 89s, 90s etc), one draft 
receives about 30% less than all others, can we say that this draft can 
be considered the worst draft compared with the rest based on 
draft-seamoby-paging-protocol-assessment?

Regards,

Chitrapu, Prabhakar R wrote:

>Hi All:
>
>I would like to make a clarification on the scoring scheme and the
>interpretation of the scores (in particular, high vs low values).
>Unfortunately, I do not have those emails that were talking about the
>interpretation of the scores, so that I am replying to this somewhat
>randomly picked one on this topic.
>
>I think that there is an inaccuracy in thinking that a higher aggregate
>score is 'better' (in the present context). Recall that a score of 1 was
>given if a requirement was not met and a score of 4 was given if the
>requirement was met, so that indeed the higher score is 'better'. However,
>score 2 indicated 'under-specification', whereas score 3 indicated
>'over-specification'. Here, I am not sure if I can say that
>'over-specification' is 'better' than 'under-specification' or vice versa.
>Therefore, I think that it is incorrect to interpret a higher aggregate
>score as necessarily denoting a 'better' protocol.
>
>Please note that my comment is related only to score interpretation and not
>to the much bigger topic of the assessment process and its results.
>However, I do sincerely hope that this discussion will soon be settled
>amicably among all of us!
>
>Best regards
>Prabhakar.
>--------------------
>Prabhakar Chitrapu
>InterDigital Communications Corp.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Kempf [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 2:10 PM
>To: Behcet Sarikaya
>Cc: Cedric Westphal; Pat R. Calhoun; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seamoby mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>

-- 
Behcet