Subject: [NSIS] RMD in the Analysis draft

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:47:00 +0300

Hi all,

I am concerned that only one person has spoken up in favor of
adding RMD in the Analysis draft (besides the backers of the
technology).  Unless there is sufficient interest in the subject,
I propose we do not add it to the Analysis draft.

thanks,
John

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: "Lars.Westberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 08:35:21 +0200

Hi!
Do you have a list of how many people
that is in favour of each proposal in the analsysis draft ?
I have not seen any voting in the working group regarding which proposal
that should be included. Should we inittiate such discussion ?

- Lasse

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:26:52 +0300 (EEST)

I knew this type of comment was coming... I knew it, I knew it... :)

Lasse,

AFAIK, there is no voting in the IETF, only rough consensus. The Analysis
draft is now a year old and it should be closed pretty soon now. We need
to put an end to constantly editing the document, otherwise we will never,
ever, get it done. Thus, I understood that John was clearly asking the WG
consensus on what is still needed to be included into the document. There
is no problem what so ever to include more protocols, including RMD and
many, many others, and do more analysis, if there is a rough consensus
that more work is needed. AFAIK, rough consensus is not fulfilled if only
a group with a subjective view of an issue support it.

To me, it sounds like there is a rough consensus about the current set of
protocols. I base this view on the fact that the draft has been out for a
year now and there has not been comments about removing existing
evaluations, although, from the initial list of protocols, ITSUMO was
dropped.

Cheers,
Jukka

---

From: "Lars.Westberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:36:30 +0200

Thanks, this was a good explanation.  I know that we have been "slow" to
generate the text to the document.
Is RMD the only proposed addition to the draft ?

regards Lasse

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:52:29 +0300 (EEST)

Hi Lasse,

Several people requested discussions about inter-domain issues,
enhancements to BGRP, for example. I should get all such text by Monday
morning my time. Apart from that, I will only be doing editorial stuff,
and trying to write some summary.

FYI, I have received several personal (subjective) requests to add "this
and that" protocol into the document, but I have turned all such requests
down, and asked to get the rough consensus from the NSIS list before yet
another protocol is added.

From your point of view, RMD can be added as a reference, would be a good
idea anyway, but to include a full analysis would require the rough
consensus from the WG - at least that is how I see it... maybe I'm wrong,
and someone, please, correct me.

I am trying to follow the rough consensus of the whole WG and work
according to that.

Cheers,
Jukka

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:54:37 +0200

Hi Jukka

What I found very strange is that during the last IETf meeting
you have asked me to send the RMD text to the NSIS WG list.
The sent text has been commented and after that there were no objections
of including the
RMD text into the analysis draft.

One week before the deadline a new criterion on this is introduced.
I think that the people that are following the NSIS WG list have had no
time to react on this new  criterion.

By the way if we want to be fair in this WG then the criterion that is
requested to be
used for RMD it should also be used for all other  proposals included in the
analysis draft.

Best regards,
Georgios

---

From: "Lars.Westberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:55:45 +0200

Rough consensus should be from the persons partizipating in the group not
dependent if he has partizipate in a certain work or not.

I agree that we may not need a full-fledge analysis. What I thought was reasonable
is short description of it.

regards Lasse

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:17:12 +0300 (EEST)

Hi Georgios,

a few quick comments,

a) re-read the 2nd paragraph of my email,

b) see my follow-up email about adding new stuff, and

c) AFAIK, "no objections" != "yes"

Cheers,
Jukka

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:21:36 +0200

Hi Jukka

I see this as a new defined criterion (during last week)
and therefore, I would very much appreciate  if we could discuss it
during the next IETF meeting.

Best Regards,
Georgios

---

From: "Lars.Westberg" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:30:29 +0200

I as a group member, proposing to add a short desription of RMD in the analysis. A
full-fledge analysis is not required.

regards Lasse

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:36:49 +0300 (EEST)

Hi Georgios,

This is the last email I will write about this subject, I hope.

I agree that a short description of a new protocol e.g. RMD could be ok.  
Should there be other protocols added, too? Anyone?

As an editor of the draft, I don't want to be pressured from individual
groups supporting their protocols (no offense intended, and you are not
the only one trying to pressure me), but rather want to see the WG ask for
new content to the draft. I am trying to do what the whole WG, or most of
the people, some rough consensus, wants. I am happy to do what the WG, the
Chair, or the ADs want to be done. I am not happy to do what small
individual groups with their own agenda want me to do.

I sincerely hope you understand my situation.

Cheers,
Jukka

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:27:41 +0200

I am also a group member of this WG and I am proposing to add a short
description of RMD
in the analysis draft.

Best regards,
Georgios
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lars.Westberg" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jukka MJ Manner" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>; "John Loughney"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: [NSIS] RMD in the Analysis draft

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 13:08:51 -0400

Just remember that what happens at meetings is not definitive -- it's 
what is decided on the list that counts.

Georgios Karagiannis wrote:

>>>used for RMD it should also be used for all other  proposals included in
> 
> the
> 
>>>analysis draft.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Georgios
>>>
>>>>AFAIK, there is no voting in the IETF, only rough consensus. The
> 
> Analysis
> 
>>>>draft is now a year old and it should be closed pretty soon now. We
> 
> need
> 
>>>>to put an end to constantly editing the document, otherwise we will
> 
> never,
> 
>>>>ever, get it done. Thus, I understood that John was clearly asking the
> 
> WG
> 
>>>>consensus on what is still needed to be included into the document.
> 
> There
> 
>>>>is no problem what so ever to include more protocols, including RMD
> 
> and
> 
>>>>that more work is needed. AFAIK, rough consensus is not fulfilled if
> 
> only
> 
>>>>To me, it sounds like there is a rough consensus about the current set
> 
> of
> 
>>>>protocols. I base this view on the fact that the draft has been out
> 
> for a
> 
>>>>>I have not seen any voting in the working group regarding which
> 
> proposal
>

---

From: karagiannis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:13:32 +0200 (MEST)

Of course, but at the IETF meeting we could discuss
the used rejection method

>>>>>>>I propose we do not add it to the Analysis draft.

Dr. ir. Georgios Karagiannis
Group: Design and Analysis of Communication Systems (DACS)
University of Twente
The Netherlands