Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] WG process

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:51:35 -0400

> 
> I would also like to add a note, for the WG in general, 
> not only to James. Can we _pleeeease_ have some consistency
> in the way we assess proposals. Let's consider the RFC being 
> referenced here (1958). Doesn't the quote used by Phil state 
> that the intelligence should be in the end hosts? So why are 
> we accepting proposals that do not follow these principals? 
> Yes I'm referring to both FMIPv4 and FMIPv6, and I have 
> contributed heavily to both drafts, so no bias here ;)
> 
> I don't understand why certain actions are taken towards
> some proposals and not others. Why was their a big LMM 
> requirements doc done for one WG document and not 
> for reg reg in MIPv4? 
> All these things need to be considered. Using a separate 
> process to handle each proposal is not only confusing, but 
> will likely lead to no direction for this WG's output.
> 
> Please follow one process!

At some level we do follow one process although the steps in each
document may be different as circumstances require.  Abstractly
it seems we have a process of problem statement, requirements, proposals,
proposal selection, wg iterations, wg last call.

In some cases we have the luxury that the problem statement and requirements
are clear enough that we get one proposal and are able to iterate and do
a wg last call.  In other cases, it's muddy enough that we start from the
beginning.  In yet other cases it seems clear enough at the time we start
that a proposal is fine, yet as we iterate we realize there may be
conflicting
requirements, disagreements amongst the constituency, and a need to step
back and look again.  We could force all the steps to occur on everything
we consider, but personally optimizations where possible seem productive,
even
though in some cases we have to backtrack.  It is frustrating in a way that
when docs take a long time to get through, there are more opportunities for
finding problems, or thinking about the original problem.

Why was LMM requirements done for v6 and not for v4?  Probably a lot of
reasons -
the ones that seem clear to me are premature selection of a proposal,
recognized
in a disagreement about requirements.

Hope this helps,
Phil

> Hesham