Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

From: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 07:30:54 -0800

Behcet,

The process, to which I provided you a pointer a few days ago,
clearly states that folks express their opinion on the list. Jim and
I will not read other mailing list archives to determine roush
consensus. The seamoby list is the only one we can use to gauge
consensus.

Again, as Jim clearly stated, the only objection we are seeing right
now is yours (although you claim two other people did, and 3 is still
short of rough consensus for a list that has 499 members). If we
guaged there was rough consensus on this issue, then we would most
certainly act. 

Our primary concern at this time is to get the work completed and
achieve our milestones. So how about we get to work and put this
behind us.

PatC

- -----Original Message-----
From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:12 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

Several people not authors of proposals (Vijay, Rene) voiced their 
concern on the murky assessment, or am I wrong, or are you waiting
for  
the sky to fall down?

To be on the positive side, we can offer Majordomo based mailing list
support for the design team, if only with no WG draft.

Take it or leave it.

James Kempf wrote:

>
>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
>

- -- 
Behcet 

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

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:04:31 -0600

Hi Pat,
  So you are backing your cochair's decision to select the draft that 
received 72 marks while all other drafts received 90 or so marks. This 
means that the criteria was to select the worst draft as the WG draft. 
Since this was the case of course the worst draft  people would need 
other drafts in order to get something that makes sense.
   The catch here is how to get the other draft people to agree on this 
impossible task. This is the dilemma we are facing presently. That's why 
the pleas are being written, and even some people are being forced.
  My simple logic says this is impossible. If it is the WG chairship to 
try to achieve the impossible, please continue to try it, you won't get 
anywhere!

Regards,

Pat R. Calhoun wrote:

>  
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Behcet,
>
> From: Behcet Sarikaya [ mailto:[email-masked] ]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use < http://www.pgp.com >
>
> iQA/AwUBPEbuLjN1fXKoxmisEQJfYwCg+H6m+Uo6ly00ONoyYOFLLtGLGbgAoNkr
> 5WxMNRzg0Qv02oder+oZzLGR
> =GIVv
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

-- 
Behcet

---

From: Cedric Westphal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 08:45:10 -0800

Pat,

> guaged there was rough consensus on this issue, then we would most
First, I have not followed the debate. However, I find unacceptable
that you would tell Behcet not to voice his opinion because he is the
only one doing so. How do you get
to the conclusion that the roughly 495 who are not participating in this
debate agree with you (and not Behcet) just because they shut up?
Can you point to one debate where the rough consensus was reached
by way of more than 250 favorable opinions? I have seen proposals on
this list (say car discovery reqs, for instance) decided by 2 people in 
favor,
one against. For any outcome here to make sense, shouldn't the definition
of rough consensus be consistent?

Cedric.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:39:14 -0800

Behcet,

> other drafts in order to get something that makes sense.

There are two invalid assumptions here which might be
clarified by a more careful reading of
the text and email I sent out yesterday:

1) That I made the decision to select the WG draft. The decision
was joint between Pat and I, with approval of Allison as
the text I sent out yesterday explained.

2) That the rating system consisted of absolute numbers, like the
the price of groceries or something, that one could simply add up
and come up with a score. In fact, as I mentioned in my email yesterday,
the rating system was something I cooked up to let us
compare the drafts *on individual requirements*. It failed
miserably, because people kept making assumptions, like
the above, that the numbers were some absolute value that
could simply be added together to determine the result.
In retrospect, this is a natural assumption I suppose, but
it certainly was not how we performed the analysis. Perhaps
I need to add some text to the assessment draft explaining this.

> try to achieve the impossible, please continue to try it, you won't
get

I'll let this go uncommented, since I don't understand the point.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:06:15 -0800

Cedric,

Behcet has the right to express his opinion, you are correct. But, my
interpretation of Behcet's remarks is the following:

1) That the process around the decision to select the WG draft was
murky. Others have made this
comment as well, and I agreed, several times in fact, that this was the
case. I sent out text yesterday
describing how the decision was made. Behcet's followup email had one
point about the decision
process, involving the rating numbers, which I attempted to clarify in
email, and I will put text
into the assessment draft explaining that the numbers are only designed
to compare the protocols
on a requirement by requirement basis. Perhaps I should even take the
numbers out of the
assessment draft, as they are too confusing. They were only a tool for
the assessment team, a
tool that fundamentally didn't work.

2) That the assessment process misjudged his contribution. What can I
say about this? I explained
yesterday why we we couldn't accept his design.

Now, I've made these same explainations several times to Behcet on the
list, cultivating patience, and I will continue
to do so, but, really, we need to get on with it. If you or any other WG
member has issues with the
assessment process or the selection result, please post them, but we
would really, really like to wind up
this discussion by the beginning of next week so that we can start with
the technical work. If it still seems
in our judgement that the WG is satisfied with the decision and is
satisfied with the explaination of
the decision process, then Behcet can file a grievance action with the
IESG. If there are other members
who have issues with the process or the result, then we will need to
discuss it.

If you recall last spring, Pat was beaten up by certain WG members for
running closed design teams to
do certain WG work items. At every IETF Plenium, somebody gets up and
complains about design teams.
As the text I sent out yesterday indicated, we do not consider the
current content of draft-renker
to be the final content of the draft, we consider it to be the starting
point. We would like the working
group, in a completely open fashion, to contribute to moving that
technical content forward. Now, it
seems, we are getting beaten up for *not* having a closed design team!

One simply cannot win.

            jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cedric Westphal" <[email-masked]>
To: "Pat R. Calhoun" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Behcet Sarikaya'" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:37:28 -0600

Hello all,
  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. 
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.
  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.
  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.
  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? 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.

Regards,

--behcet

---

From: Cedric Westphal <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:54:14 -0800

Jim,

my point was that there is no clear support either in favor of the decision
besides, I quote from you mail "in [your] judgement, the WG is satisfied 
with the decision".
The only claim to support this satisfaction is that, I paraphrase, 
'people are vocal on
this list, and would have said so if they disagreed' and the only 3 
voices (all against)
should not be counted as they are not many enough. Well, the argument 
could be
turned around, the same vocal people would have said so had they agreed.
As long as the WG is silent, I don't see why you should interprete this 
silence as
supporting your point of view, and not Behcet's.

 (for one, I have not given any opinion on whether or not draft-renker 
should be the design basis, not because I agree with you or Behcet, but 
because I don't have any opinion on this
specific question. I do feel wronged whenever I read that my silence 
supports either
side in this debate).

Cedric.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:09:43 -0800

Behcet,

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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

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

Subject: Re: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description
From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
To: "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 13:40:21 -0800
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>

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

---

From: Muhammad Jaseemuddin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:58:16 -0500

Cedric,

Cedric Westphal wrote:

> besides, I quote from you mail "in [your] judgement, the WG is 
> satisfied with the decision".
> As long as the WG is silent, I don't see why you should interprete 
> this silence as
> should be the design basis, not because I agree with you or Behcet, 
> but because I don't have any opinion on this

I am also in your situation sharing your concern. The silence of great 
majoroity is interpreted by WG cochair as siding his opinion, which is 
not necessarily the case. Jim himself agreed in the previous email, and 
I copied below:

'That the process around the decision to select the WG draft was
murky. Others have made this
comment as well, and I agreed, several times in fact, that this was the
case.'

that the process was murky, then why the decision is being made in haste. We should work to resolve Behcet's concern. It is also quite mind boggling for me that a point-based evaluation criterion was designed by the one who is declairing that it 'miserably failed'. This also shows that Bechcet has a right to get a satisfactory answer.

- Muhammad Jaseemuddin