Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Paging Protocol Decision Description

From: "Chitrapu, Prabhakar R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:08:55 -0500

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:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 2:10 PM
To: Behcet Sarikaya
Cc: Cedric Westphal; Pat R. Calhoun; [email-masked]
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
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:34:18 -0800

Hello Prabhakar,

> score as necessarily denoting a 'better' protocol.

It does appear from the text (from James) below that "over-specification"
(which implies a higher score) was considered better, at least in one of the
important areas.

For what it is worth..

Regards,

-Rajeev

> mobility protocols. Draft-renker was judged by the assessment team to
> be overspecific in these areas, in the sense that it contained two
> modes,
> explicit mode and implicit mode, depending on whether Mobile IP was
> supported
> or not. However, considering the relatively immature state of the paging
> protocol design, the decision team felt that providing the working group
> with choices, where the benefits and drawbacks of each choice could be
> clearly weighed, was preferable to providing a fixed decision, so
> draft-renker was judged to be better in this regard.

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 17:45:18 -0600

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,

-- 
Behcet