Subject: RE: [Seamoby] Section 5.2 in CT Requirements

From: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:00:19 -0500

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:14 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [Seamoby] Section 5.2 in CT Requirements

Folks,

So recently I had another look at the CT Requirements document and I was
suprised to find Section 5.2. It says this:

    5.2 Transport Reliability

       This section is intentionally left blank as the working group is
       waiting for a questionnaire from the transport directorate. The
result
       of the questionnaire will create requirements that will be added in
this
       section in a later revision of this specification.

It is completely unacceptable that we sent this document to the IESG with
this
section in it. When a document passes through last call, it should be
complete.
As WG chairs, Pat and I naturally must accept responsibility for this, but
this
should really have been caught in WG Last Call.

I would like suggest replacing Section 5.2 with the following:

    5.2 Transport Requirements

        This section contains requirements on the context transfer
transport.

    5.1 Independence of Underlying Transport

        The context transfer solution MUST be independent of the underlying
transport. It SHOULD be possible to transfer
        context directly on top of reliable transports, such as TCP or SCTP,
unreliable transports, such as UDP, or as an
        option or extention on another protocol, such as handover signaling.

Comments?

Madjid>>
I second Gary's comments. The wording was suggested to us.
I also remember the very long debate of reliability and the fact
that some folks wanted reliability and some didn't.
Our TEXT proposal shows that you can add reliability to CT if
you want it and is not offered to you.

Good suggestion on 5.1. 
I am ok with your 5.1 formulation, I think it should make everybody
happy by leaving enough flexibility there. However, I am not sure how
I can prove independance of transport for our proposal even, i.e. the
first MUST in 5.1.
Don't know why the 5.2 (This section....) is still there.

Madjid

            jak
   u

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

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:18:29 -0700

> I know that there was concern by the IESG on this very topic, and the idea of
> the above text was a compromise with the area director, who was going to
> initiate a discussion with the transport directorate. Unfortunately, this
> never occured, and the text remained. Allison had suggested that we continue
> with the non-transport discussions and that this topic will resurface again
> in the future.
>
> The question is whether this can occur after the document can be published
> (perhaps without the section).
>

Harald made a comment in the IESG Plenary on Wed. nite about working groups
submitting documents with "to be defined" to the IESG. This document qualifies,
IMHO.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:18:29 -0700

jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 06:03:52 -0700

Pat,

> with the non-transport discussions and that this topic will resurface again

I don't think Allison intended that the document go to the IESG with this text
in it, though I have not had an opportunity to speak with her about it. But
ultimately
she is not responsible for the working group documents, that is the
working group's responsiblity. We should have pulled that text out before we
sent it to the IESG, and, ideally, had something to replace it. If, at that
point, the IESG had a technical disagreement with our proposed requirement,
then we would have heard back.

> (perhaps without the section).

I think we at least have to propose a requirement, which is what the text I sent
was intended to do.

            jak

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 06:03:52 -0700

Pat,

            jak