Subject: [Ietf-behave] consensus query: -behave-nat-udp: moving requirements

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 11:48:27 -0700 (PDT)

This email is to poll for consensus on moving the following requirements
from the UDP document (draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp-05.txt) to the forthcoming
BEHAVE working group ICMP document (currently
draft-srisuresh-behave-nat-icmp-01.txt):

  REQ-12:  Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT destroy 
           the NAT mapping.
           a) The NAT's default configuration SHOULD NOT filter 
              ICMP messages based on their source IP address.
           b) It is RECOMMENDED that a NAT support ICMP 
              Destination Unreachable messages.

  REQ-13:  If the packet has DF=1, the NAT SHOULD send back an 
           ICMP message "fragmentation needed and DF set" message 
           to the host as described in RFC 792 [2].
           a) If the packet has DF=0, the NAT SHOULD fragment 
              the packet and send the fragments, in order.

  REQ-14:  A NAT MUST support fragmentation of packets larger 
           than link MTU.

If you have an objection to moving these requirements from the UDP document
to the ICMP document, please reply to this email.

-d

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 20:36:05 -0700 (PDT)

>               Destination Unreachable messages.

This requirement must remain in the UDP draft. When developing Teredo,
we have observed many problems with NAT implementations that removed a
UDP mapping after receiving an ICMP unreachable message. This is a
common bug, which in some cases prevent establishment of UDP
associations. I understand that this is a requirement on the handling of
ICMP packets, but the result of that handling directly affects UDP
mappings. 

You may want to clarify the requirement and mentions that it only
applies to ICMP messages related to UDP associations.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 12:21:56 -0700 (PDT)

> ICMP packets, but the result of that handling directly affects UDP
[suresh] My understanding of Teredo is limited. I havent read your RFC. Do
correct, if I misundertood. I believe, Teredo is a tunnel based solution,
primarily for V4/V6. Did the testing include V4 NATs? Also, was the testing
targeted primarily at RTP/UDP applications or did that include a wide range of
applications? Can you tell us the range of NATs and the range of applications
tested? Also, what are the ICMP error messages you had seen? Were the NATs
removing the state irrespective of the type of ICMP error message (soft or
hard)? 

> applies to ICMP messages related to UDP associations.

[suresh] I disagree. Just because some NATs have been known to delete state for
UDP sessions, that does not mean that REQ-12 is specific to UDP flows only.
Likewise, REQ-13 cannot be deemed TCP specific, just because a large number of
TCP apps set the DF bit. Both these requirements are applicable to ICMP error
generation/processing and applicale to all IP flows and the behave requirements
shoudl reflect that as generic ICMP requirements, IMHO. 

It is certainly beneficial to state that Req-12 vioaltions have been noticied
w.r.t. UDP flows and that TCP apps are particularly sensitive to REq-13. 

regards,
suresh

> -- Christian Huitema
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-behave mailing list
> Ietf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-behave
>

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 13:54:41 -0700 (PDT)

> primarily for V4/V6. Did the testing include V4 NATs? 

Teredo provides for Tunneling of IPv6 packets over IPv4/UDP, across IPv4
NAT.

> Also, was the testing
> tested? 

Once you have Teredo installed, you can run pretty much any application
you want over IPv6. We have tested it across a very large range of NATs.

> Also, what are the ICMP error messages you had seen? Were the NATs

Teredo essentially establishes an UDP/IPv4 association between two
hosts. The interesting case happens when both hosts are behind a NAT.
The basic exchange is as follow:

1) Host A maintains UDP/IPv4 connection with a non NAT server. The
mapping is pinned in the NAT by regular refresh. The server tells A its
"mapped address", i.e. UDP port and IPv4 address as seen outside the
NAT.

2) Host B learns the "mapped address" of host A (i.e. IPv4 address and
UDP port). It sends a UDP packet directly to that address, effectively
creating a mapping in the local NAT. The packet is typically refused by
A's NAT, because no mapping exists yet for the communication between A
and B.

3) Host B also sends a packet to Host A through host A's server. Through
this packet, A learns the mapped address of B.

4) Host A sends a UDP/IPv4 packet to B. This packet is received, because
a mapping was installed at step 2.

The bug we have observed is as follow:

1) ...

2) ...

2a) Upon receiving the packet from B, the NAT at Host A generates an
ICMP error message and sends it to B.

2b) Upon receiving the ICMP error, the NAT at host B destroys the
mapping established at step 2.

3) ..

4) Host A sends a UDP/IPv4 packet to B. The packet is NOT received,
because a mapping was installed at step 2.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 19:24:43 -0700 (PDT)

Yes, I have a serious objection.

A long time ago we had these ICMP items in a separate draft from the  
UDP. For several reason the WG decided to put the things that  
effected UDP application into the UDP document. The document is now  
past WGLC.  We have people waiting to implement it. We need it. I see  
no reason to play musical chairs with paragraphs of text at this  
point in time. I see no new information that causes me to want to  
reverse the decision the WG made when it decided to move these  
together. I don't believe that separating them will improve the odds  
of NAT vendors doing the things for UDP that they need to do for UDP  
based application to be able to reliably work. If a ICMP draft gets  
done, it could update this UPD draft. I will point out the ICMP draft  
is not yet a WG item.

Applications need the destination unreachable so that we know a host  
is down and can use DNS to go to the next host. Applications need the  
"Do Not Fragment" support  so they can do MTU discover. Applications  
need to know that fragmentation will work because MTU discovery does  
not always work. This are things we all agree the WG agreed we need -  
I object to removing them. I view the whole topic of  even  
considering removing them at this late stage of the game to be the  
worst of distasteful standards gamesmanship when there is no reason  
this could not have been brought up sooner.

Cullen (with my individual contributor hat on)

On May 2, 2006, at 2:48 PM, Dan Wing wrote:

This email is to poll for consensus on moving the following  
requirements
from the UDP document (draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp-05.txt) to the  
forthcoming
BEHAVE working group ICMP document (currently
draft-srisuresh-behave-nat-icmp-01.txt):

If you have an objection to moving these requirements from the UDP  
document

-d

---

From: "Rohan Mahy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 19:48:49 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Dan,If the ICMP draft was a stable WG item and the UDP draft normatively referenced the ICMP draft, then this would be reorganization and I would not care.  It isn't.  These requirements are needed to make UDP applications work, and I believe that is non-controversial.  The proposed "move" would change what a NAT vendor has to do to claim compliance with the document. Please just leave the requirements in place.
thanks,-rohanOn 5/2/06, Dan Wing <dwing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This email is to poll for consensus on moving the following requirementsfrom the UDP document (draft-ietf-behave-nat-udp-05.txt) to the forthcomingBEHAVE working group ICMP document (currentlydraft-srisuresh-behave-nat-icmp-01.txt
):  REQ-12:  Receipt of any sort of ICMP message MUST NOT destroy           the NAT mapping.           a) The NAT's default configuration SHOULD NOT filter              ICMP messages based on their source IP address.
           b) It is RECOMMENDED that a NAT support ICMP              Destination Unreachable messages.  REQ-13:  If the packet has DF=1, the NAT SHOULD send back an           ICMP message "fragmentation needed and DF set" message
           to the host as described in RFC 792 [2].           a) If the packet has DF=0, the NAT SHOULD fragment              the packet and send the fragments, in order.  REQ-14:  A NAT MUST support fragmentation of packets larger
           than link MTU.If you have an objection to moving these requirements from the UDP documentto the ICMP document, please reply to this email.-d_______________________________________________
Ietf-behave mailing listIetf-behave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxhttps://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-behave

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 03:50:49 -0700 (PDT)

> a mapping was installed at step 2.
[suresh] Thanks, Christian, for the details. For purposes of this discussion, I
will assume, there is no IPv6 traffic involved and all hosts, servers and NATs
mentioned are V4 based.

> ICMP error message and sends it to B.

[suresh] This is not good for P2P. For precisely this reason, the TCP behave
draft recommends NATs to silently drop the inbound Syns, and not send an ICMP
error message back. The UDP draft is silent about this. I believe, the UDP
behave should also make the same recommendation. Any thoughts?

> mapping established at step 2.

[suresh] This is not good. The above test steps are UDP centric. It is quite
likely the behavior exists for TCP as well, especially as the TCP Session is in
connecting state. Same might be true with ICMP and other NAT sessions as well.
The specific requirement that an ICMP error should not destroy or age NAT
session (no matter what protocol the session belongs to and what state the
session is in) applies to all NAT Sessions and belongs in the ICMP draft, IMHO.

regards,
suresh

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 04:05:24 -0700 (PDT)

Here is the status of the ICMP draft.

As Dan mentioned in one of his e-mails, the authors of the ICMP draft have had
a long private discussion on the ICMP requirements with Dan, Cullen and
Fernando past couple of months.  We had closure on all outstanding items durig
the discussion. I had put out a revised ICMP draft on 05/01/06 for one more
review by the same audience (authors, Dan, Cullen and Fernando) before
submitting to the IETF. I will be submitting the updated draft this weekend. 

I fully expect this updated draft to be a WG item. Perhaps Dan can comment
otherwise.

regards,
suresh 

--- Rohan Mahy <rohan.mahy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
> 
> If the ICMP draft was a stable WG item and the UDP draft normatively
> referenced the ICMP draft, then this would be reorganization and I would not
> care.  It isn't.  These requirements are needed to make UDP applications
> work, and I believe that is non-controversial.  The proposed "move" would
> change what a NAT vendor has to do to claim compliance with the document.
> Please just leave the requirements in place.
> 
> thanks,
> -rohan
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/2/06, Dan Wing <dwing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 05:19:01 -0700 (PDT)

--- Cullen Jennings <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> effected UDP application into the UDP document. 

[suresh] Let me corect. Not long ago (05/2005), we had an independent
behave-gen document that covered all Protocol independent stuff. The WG decided
to keep all generic IP reqmts and  common terminology in the UDP draft. At that
time, there was no ICMP draft. So, the UDP draft kept the ICMP requirements it
had (under the banner of generic IP requirements). 

>                                                 The document is now  

[suresh] It is better to have a clear, non-ambiguous RFC out than one that
would confuse people.

You keep saying this is past WGLC, as though it is a sacrlege to comment past
that. When a document goes through prolonged comments during a WGLC, it is
normally customary to subject it to another WGLC after the updates are done. I
have seen this done in many WGs. But, that was not the case with the UDP draft.
UDP draft went through a prolonged discussion during WGLC. But, that was that.
Tnere was no follow up. AT some point, the draft was considered a done deal.
So, people did not have a chance to comment on the list after an updated draft
was put out. 
 
Anyways, after the WGLC of the UDP draft was done, some of us had come out with
an ICMP requirements draft, as per the milestone listed in the WG at the time.
The ICMP draft had no choice but to overlap with some of the requirements 
already included in the UDP draft. But, there were no conflicts. Since the UDP
draft was considered a "ready to publish" item, the subject of pullinthe ICMP
requirements out of the UDP draft did not come up. 

> this could not have been brought up sooner.
[suresh] Cullen - You should look in the mirror before you call people names. I
am not asking for the UDP draft to be blocked. I am merely commenting what I
believe to be true - that requirements that ICMP centric and not UDP specific
should be removed from the UDP draft. I do not play games. May be you do. 

>From my view point, this is exactly the right time to bring up the concerns.
Here is three reasons why.
a. When people including myself made comments on the UDP draft in the past,
Francois commented this is a done deal and ready to be published and that it is
not going to be changed. When I asked the WG chairs to respond if this was
indeed the case, you (the WG chair at the time) did not respond. I assumed,
Francois's comment must be true and made no further comments. Below is the
reference e-mail, FYI.

http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/ietf-behave/msg01104.html

b. As I mentioned in another thread, the authors of the ICMP draft had
extensive review and discussion on the ICMP requirements with Dan. And, we
closed on all the issues and put out an updated rev of the draft. You were also
on the thread. Given all the consensus reached, I am of the opinion that it is
very likely, the ICMP draft will be a WG item.

c. Lastly, when I saw Magnus send his AD comments to the list, I figured this
would be the right time to respond. I made comments in response to Magnus's
comments and in light of the new development in item b) above.

There is no games here, as you insinuate.

cheers,
suresh

---

From: Alan Hawrylyshen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 08:27:30 -0700 (PDT)

On May 2, 2006, at 12.48, Dan Wing wrote:

The objection that I would raise is one of timing. I would like to  
see the UDP document published quickly and removing these items will  
delay the availability of a complete set of recommendations for  
implementors. Even if we 'hurry along' with the ICMP document, there  
will be significant lag in presenting the larger community with a  
document set that has concrete recommendations.

I have seen time and time again at interop events where vendors have  
implemented _their_ interpretation of the standards; frequently a  
very misguided subset. It is my experience that providing clear,  
single source guidance to an implementation community leads to better  
interoperability.

With those comments in mind, I would prefer to have a best effort at  
ensuring no conflict with the in-progress ICMP document and  
publishing the UDP draft quickly. Then, as required, we can have the  
ICMP draft update the UDP document.

Thanks,

Alan Hawrylyshen

--
a l a n a t p o l y p h a s e d o t c a

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 12:04:54 -0700 (PDT)

> ICMP draft update the UDP document.

Yes. Please publish the UDP spec as is, including the requirements about
how to handle ICMP packets that are triggered by UDP traffic.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 21:27:45 -0700 (PDT)

On May 5, 2006, at 7:05 AM, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:

I fully expect this updated draft to be a WG item. Perhaps Dan can  
comment
otherwise.
We have not even asked for WG consensus to adopt this draft, it's not  
clear we have a milestone fro the material in it. That would have to  
be dealt with first.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 21:45:24 -0700 (PDT)

On May 5, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:

When I asked the WG chairs to respond if this was
indeed the case, you (the WG chair at the time) did not respond. I  
assumed,
Francois's comment must be true and made no further comments. Below  
is the
reference e-mail, FYI.

To quote your question from the email you reference below, you say

On Jan 4, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
Question to the WG chairs and AD: Is the UDP rev 4 draft assumed to  
have been
reviewed and approved by the WG and the IESG?

This email was not sent to the chairs or the AD and I suspect that  
many people probably interepreted this as a retorical question. You  
have publihsed RFCs and ceritaily must be aware of the process and  
that this draft had not been aproved by IESG. As you well know, it is  
easy to go check on what has been aproved by the IESG not to mention  
you would have seen things such as the IETF Last Call for the call  
before it was aproved by IESG..

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 04:52:22 -0700 (PDT)

Hi,

To me it seems too disrupting to the timeliness of the UDP draft to 
remove the ICMP requirements from it. There seems to be rough consensus 
also on this. So lets go forward with the update of the draft so that we 
can get this document published.

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVA/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone +46 8 4048287
Torshamsgatan 23           | Fax   +46 8 7575550
S-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 13:28:03 -0700 (PDT)

Cullen,

I am not against WG consensus.

However, I dont recall, you had WG consensus, when you removed the ICMP
milestone from the WG charter in the first place.

regards,
suresh

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 20:16:02 -0700 (PDT)

We've talked about the process around charters, milestones, and WG  
drafts before. I don't know what I can say that I have not said  
before so I think I probably won't try to do it in email. I don't  
think there has been any process violation here or things that needed  
WG consensus done without WG consensus. If you think there has been  
or just want to understand why, I'm glad to have a phone call about  
this some time.

Cullen

On May 6, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:

Cullen,

However, I dont recall, you had WG consensus, when you removed the  
ICMP
milestone from the WG charter in the first place.

regards,
suresh

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 18:23:13 -0700 (PDT)

--- Cullen Jennings <fluffy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> many people probably interepreted this as a retorical question. 

[suresh] Cullen - The WG chairs are supposed to be on the list by default,
AFAIK.  I should not have to Cc the WG chairs explicitly. I did not Cc Jon
explicitly because he had commented on the list in the past, even as he was not
explicitly Cced. So, I figured, he must also be on the list. The question was
clearly directed at the WG chairs and the AD. I dont understand how that coudl
have been interpreted as rhetorical by anyone. Certainly you, as WG chair,
coudl have responded.

>                                                                 You  
[suresh] Processes change. When in doubt, one seeks clarification from WG
chair.  Francois made the satetment several times about the draft bein in done
state. You never bothered to correct that. 

The first time I understood that UDP draft was up for comments was when Dan
pointed out to me in a private e-mail that he had not sent PROTOS comments on
it yet and hence is still open to comments. PROTOS comments is a new process.
Within a few days after that, Dan sent his PROTOS comments to the list. Magnus
followed with his comments. I responded with my concerns.

cheers,
suresh

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:05:13 -0700 (PDT)

Pyda Srisuresh <srisuresh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
> The first time I understood that UDP draft was up for 
> comments was when Dan pointed out to me in a private e-mail 
> that he had not sent PROTOS comments on it yet and hence is 
> still open to comments. PROTOS comments is a new process.
> Within a few days after that, Dan sent his PROTOS comments to 
> the list. Magnus followed with his comments. I responded with 
> my concerns.

(It's my mistake for adding an "S" to PROTO, because there is a
test suite called PROTOS.  Sorry.  Anyway, it's "PROTO".)

Magnus had asked me to do the two write-ups described in 
draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-06.txt, to give
this new procedure a try.  In this procedure, the shepherding
working group chair (me, in this case) does a write-up which
is used during IESG review of the document.

Prior to having the entire IESG review the document, Magnus
gave it a careful read and had suggested changes.  However,
as you know, the document itself had its initial WGLC in 
April 2005 -- a year ago.

http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/ietf-behave/msg00606.html

Even then there was an active discussion of how to split 
protocol-specific and non-protocol-specific text amongst 
several drafts.

Over the weekend Magnus, our current AD, has said we should 
progress with the UDP document as-is, which matches with the 
consensus of the WG.  

In the archives and in the current discussion I could only 
find objections to this from you (srisuresh@xxxxxxxxx) 
and Byran Ford regarding this split, and Bryan seemed 

Last week in private email to me, Magnus proposed an idea
-- publish UDP as-is, publish TCP and ICMP (in whatever order 
they're done) and ensure there are no conflicts.  Then, if 
there is energy, publish an RFC1812-like document that 
combines UDP, TCP, IP, ICMP, and perhaps SCTP, DCCP, and 
whatever else needs a protocol-specific document, which 
would supercede the older, independant documents.

Thank you for submitting your revised ICMP document; this 
will allow the WG to determine if it is scoped according 
to people's expectations and if it should be added as a 
milestone.

-d

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 11:42:07 -0700 (PDT)

[resending because I had an incomplete paragraph.  Thanks for pointing that
out, Jiri.]

In the archives and in the current discussion I could only 
find objections to this from you (srisuresh@xxxxxxxxx) 
and Byran Ford regarding this split.  But Bryan seemed to
agree keeping some non-UDP stuff in there would be alright
when he wrote:
http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/ietf-behave/msg00681.html

-d

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 15:59:02 -0700 (PDT)

> is used during IESG review of the document.
[suresh] OK.

> http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/ietf-behave/msg00681.html

[suresh] Dan - During WGLC, we had identified 2 choices. Have a seperate
document for Generic requirements (or) keep them in the UDP draft. On the name
of expeditious completion, the WG opted to go with the latter. I went along
with that.

At the time, the WG charter also had a milestone for ICMP requirements. The
above WG choice did not imply eliminating the ICMP requirements milestone. I
checked with Jon, the AD at the time, on whether the ICMP milestone still
existed. And, he mentioned to me that the ICMP milestone remained and still
existed. That confirmation from the AD was the genesis of the ICMP draft.

Attempts by me and the co-authors in requesting the draft for adaption as WG
document fell in the deaf ears. The WG chairs simply did not respond. On top of
that, when the Behave charter was redone to add media realy milstones to the
charter, the WG chairs simply eliminated the ICMP milestone without seeking any
input from the list. That was callous.

We discussed ICMP overlaps on the list before. This is not new. During that
time, when UDP draft was considered sancrosact, I did say the overlap was OK,
so long as there is no conflict between the drafts. When Magnus sent his AD
comments to the list, it seemed appropriate to bring up the ICMP overlap. My
intent was to use the opportunity to keep the UDP draft clean and remove the
ICMP overlap. Once again, On the name of expeditious completion, the WG seems
to have opted to go with keeping the overlap requirements in the UDP draft.

> they're done) and ensure there are no conflicts.  

[suresh] Glad to see that the ICMP requirements is on the agenda. 

>                                                   Then, if 

[suresh] You are welcome. Thank you for your detailed feedback. I am looking
forward to hearing feedback from the list.

regards,
suresh

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 16:50:31 -0700 (PDT)

On May 7, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:

On Jan 4, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Pyda Srisuresh wrote:
Question to the WG chairs and AD: Is the UDP rev 4 draft assumed to
have been
reviewed and approved by the WG and the IESG?
This email was not sent to the chairs or the AD and I suspect that
many people probably interepreted this as a retorical question.
[suresh] Cullen - The WG chairs are supposed to be on the list by  
default,
AFAIK.  I should not have to Cc the WG chairs explicitly. I did not  
Cc Jon
explicitly because he had commented on the list in the past, even  
as he was not
explicitly Cced. So, I figured, he must also be on the list. The  
question was
clearly directed at the WG chairs and the AD. I dont understand how  
that coudl
have been interpreted as rhetorical by anyone. Certainly you, as WG  
chair,
coudl have responded.

                                                                You
have publihsed RFCs and ceritaily must be aware of the process and
that this draft had not been aproved by IESG. As you well know, it is
easy to go check on what has been aproved by the IESG not to mention
you would have seen things such as the IETF Last Call for the call
before it was aproved by IESG..
[suresh] Processes change. When in doubt, one seeks clarification  
from WG
chair.  Francois made the satetment several times about the draft  
bein in done
state. You never bothered to correct that.

The first time I understood that UDP draft was up for comments was  
when Dan
pointed out to me in a private e-mail that he had not sent PROTOS  
comments on
it yet and hence is still open to comments. PROTOS comments is a  
new process.
Within a few days after that, Dan sent his PROTOS comments to the  
list. Magnus
followed with his comments. I responded with my concerns.

cheers,
suresh
There is probably not much more to say about this but in defense of  
the ADs, do consider that reading all the email on all the lists they  
are subscribed to is probably not feasible.

---

From: Pyda Srisuresh <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 07:04:56 -0700 (PDT)

Cullen,

Yes, I do give benefit of doubt to the AD at the time. But, let us step back a
bit. This is not so much about the AD. This is about what you, as WG chair, did
not do to encoourage comments on the draft, ever since we had WGLC.

WG chairs are supposed to be on the list and monitoring e-mails on the list. As
WG chair, you could have corrected and solicited comments. But, you did not.
Francois made similar comments afterwards as well on the list when people
commented on the draft. But, you, as WG chair, remained quiet and did not
encourage any additional comments. As WG chair, you also did not call a WGLC
after the rather prolonged initial WGLC. In summary, not only did you not
solicit additional comments from the list, you did not bother to correct
misconceptions that the draft is a done deal. Yet, when the judgement time
came, and I send what I believe to be very legitimate concerns, you, as
individual contributor, call it "distasteful standards gamesmanship". This, I
find, hypocritical.

regards,
suresh