Subject: Re: NPF WAS (Re: ForCES model - other thoughts

From: "Yang, Lily L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:36:12 -0800

> 
> Lily,
> 
> I dont mean to be rude, but:
> Easier for you to say because you can get access to the NPF docs.
> I dont. Please dont tell me you havent looked at those docs 
> or there is
> no correlation happening with the model or that that the NPF 
> model doesnt
> get discussed in the model design team meetings.

As long as the FE model draft is self-contained, I don't see why you are so upset about it.

> 
> All i am asking for is access to those docs be made available
> or stop talking and corelating with the NPF.
> I would really like the chairs to make a comment on this issue.
> Otherwise i plan to raise this one level above.

I don't see why I should stop you either :-)
And I think I've said enough on the suject, so I will shut up and go home now :-)

> cheers,
> jamal

Good night :-)

> 
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Yang, Lily L wrote:
> 
> > The ForCES FE model document is meant to be self-contained 
> and so there
> > is no need to read NPF documents in order for you to understand FE
> > model. But many other people do care about both and want to 
> make sure
> > the standards coming out of both IETF and NPF can work 
> together. I don't
> > see anything wrong with that.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
> > [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jamal Hadi Salim
> > Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 6:34 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: NPF WAS (Re: ForCES model - other thoughts
> >
> > Lily> Thank you very much for your comments. I agree it is 
> important to
> > Lily> keep NPF and ForCES aligned and anyone who is involved in both
> > Lily> forums has to shoulder that responsibility.
> >
> > The NPF connection bothers me. AFAIK, the NPF has no liason with the
> > IETF. Their documents other than ones which are complete are only
> > accessible to members. Unfortunatley, docs which make more sense
> > have not completed that level yet.
> > Granted some people attending the NPF also attend the IETF, 
> but it is
> > extremely difficult to follow arguements based on some 
> closed documents.
> > Either the NPF makes exception or i strongly recommend we 
> stop refering
> > to them at ForCES.
> > I am willing to keep the docs to myself and not 
> redistribute it if an
> > exception is made.
> >
> > cheers,
> > jamal
> >
>

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:32:05 -0800

> why you are so upset about it.

I may be missing something subtle, so pardon my ignorance.
How do IEEE and ITU interact with IETF? Dont you think the NPF should
be under similar ground rules?
Please dont handwave on the NPF docs - They are used to influence the
model.

> And I think I've said enough on the suject, so I will shut up

I will wait for the chairs to comment.  My offer still stands: I am
willing to see these documents under a "do not distribute" non-disclosure.
I am sure a lot of other people will as well.
The best thing to do is to have a liason between ForCES and the NPF.

cheers,
jamal

---

From: Alistair Munro <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:50:16 -0000

Hi Jamil,

I appreciate your concerns but I agree with Lily's and John Renwick's
comments: the ForCES model is a standalone document that is shaping the
NPF's thoughts on how to model an FE. You aren't missing anything by not
seeing the NPF's drafts.

I've mentioned my concerns before about use by the NPF of the ForCES model
off-the-shelf, particularly that the ForCES model becomes too specific that
NPF implementers feel too constrained. However, (a) nobody in the NPF has
actually yet said they feel it's a real problem, and (b) the way to avoid
IMO it is to encourage the NPF group to contribute more to ForCES.

I don't think there is any active contributor to the NPF's discussions who
is not also a member of ForCES, or who does not have a close colleague
involved in ForCES. I hope this will allow enough "liaison" to happen
without the bureaucracy of a formal process worthy of ETSI or the ITU.

Regards,

Alistair

--
Alistair Munro,
Principal Engineer, U4EA Technologies Ltd.
City Point, Temple Gate, Bristol, BS1 6PL, U.K.
E-mail: [email-masked]
Tel: (work) +44-117-373-6765, (home) +44-1275-462707, (mobile)
+44-7974-922-442;
Fax: +44-117-373-6751
Web: http://www.u4eagroup.com

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:43:50 -0500

Alistair and John as well,

I really didnt wanna cause disturbance with this - i just feel
under-privileged for not having access to those docs ;->

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 06:50, Alistair Munro wrote:

> involved in ForCES.

The corrollary is not true - which is the major issue here. Sure i have
friends at the NPF but they are not allowed to give me docs by
regulation. OTOH, anyone at the NPF can access IETF docs.
I did manage to have a brief glance at one or two harcopies of NPF i did
find they were useful[1]. I know they are being used in relation to
ForCES. I know i may disagree with some of the ideas that may show up
at ForCES originating from the NPF and in that case if i disagree with
some of the ideas i would like to see what i am disagreeing with.

> I hope this will allow enough "liaison" to happen

I dont wanna go to that level - there has to be a shortcut (such as
making the docs accessible).

cheers,
jamal

[1]They were passed to me by mistake and i had to give them up about 5
minutes later (rightly so i should add) when it was found that i wasnt a
"member".

---

From: John Renwick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 11:26:02 -0600

Jamal,

> [stuff deleted]
>  I know i may disagree with some of the ideas that may show up

This is related to the point Lily was making, which I agree with.
Any idea contributed to ForCES must be fully explained in an Internet
Draft and is subject to examination and justification in the ForCES WG,
regardless of its origin.  Ideas originating in NPF are no different in
that regard.

As a parallel example: an individual employee of vendor X submits an
Internet Draft that happens to be based on X's not-yet-released product,
the documentation for which is available only under NDA.  They propose
that it become a WG draft.  In the IETF, the I-D stands or falls on its
own merits; if it can't be understood and accepted without reference to
private documents, then either it needs to be expanded upon or it simply
shouldn't progress.  It's neither necessary nor appropriate to ask X to
disclose its source documents in order to achieve consensus on the I-D.

You may substitute "NPF" for "Vendor X" in the above, and the argument
changes not a bit.

Regards,

John

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:06:08 -0500

> You may substitute "NPF" for "Vendor X" in the above, and the argument

Couldnt have put it better myself. Let me say i know where you are
coming from and empathize but dont sympathize. NPF is "selling" a
product that I am not supposed to see; it will just show up on the draft
in the name of  "contribution". Just like SCTP is showing up on IPFIX
because CISCO has it. I see this as a big problem (both the CISCO at
IPFIX issue and NPF at Forces) and I have reservations about the concept
in general.
In this case we can avoid it: Just release the docs under some
dont-distribute clause or form a liason with the IETF. Lets at most have
only 10% politics and reserve the other 90% for technical progress.

cheers,
jamal

PS:- when i last attended the NPF it was a melee of marketing noise
driven by exactly the above thinking. Progress was non-existent because
people(chip vendors) thought things should be driven by the way their
products are built. I heard theres a huge improvement now that customers
are joining.

---

From: Alan DeKok <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:20:00 -0500

Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> dont-distribute clause or form a liason with the IETF.

  Other working groups (IEEE, etc.) already have this kind of
relationship with IETF.  They pre-release documents to certain IETF
working groups.

  NPF could do something similar, if it's possible for them to restrict
document access to the software group.  Having some sort of
"ietf/forces" account to obtain access to NPF archives would be useful,
and would help facilitate communication between the groups.

  I think an offical request from the ForCES chair(s) to the NPF
chair(s) would be appropriate here.

  Alan DeKok.

---

From: Alex Audu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:19:28 -0600

Yes, the ForCEs model should be a standalone document. As such, efforts
to drive changes in terms used in the model document so that they allign with
those used in the NPF documents are counter-productive.

I think Jamal has a good point.

Regards,
Alex.