Subject: Re: [Re: [Ieprep] ieprep-requirements-01 - reqs 6-10 - discussion request]

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 16:48:51 EST

In a message dated 11/5/2002 3:31:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I remain a little befuddled about the charter language, despite a couple
> of attempts by Scott to clarify.  No doubt Scott will clarify the below
> if I err greatly.
> 
> However, *this particular group* is supposed to focus on how one could 
> deploy
> IEprep services *using existing mechanisms*.  The group is specifically NOT
> supposed to work on protocol design or changes to IETF protocol specs.
> So the focus of this group is how can we do IEprep stuff *today* (not
> in some indefinite future) using *existing* mechanisms.
> 

[MAP] I don't know why this continues to cause confusion. In his Oct 24 
e-mail, Scott wrote:

"I do not see anything in the charter that restricts this WG to 
only producing requirements that describe existing IP protocol functions"

I thought that was pretty clear.

> So work on changing things is legitimate for the IETF, but not particularly
> the focus of this particular working group.  As an example, this group
> is offering input to SIP WG.  SIP WG can then choose whether or not to
> make any changes and also which changes it wants to make.
> 
> So I'd say that if there are particular changes one wants to make to IETF
> protocols, then one should take those up in the *normal* IETF manner:
>     - show up at the applicable other WG
>     - explain what one wants and why one wants it
>     - write an Internet-Draft outlining one's proposal
>     - try to persuade that WG community to make those changes
>     - work with the normal process of the IETF
> 

[MAP] What you''ve described above is exactly correct. The applicable WG to 
show up at with an explanation of what one wants and why is IEPREP. We all 
agree that it is not the place to propose specific changes to specific 
protocols, but if possibilites can't be mentioned, then we'll never get 
there. Nor can one go directly to SIP or DiffServ, or whatever WG and claim 
to need something. We already agreed that doesn't work.

> No doubt Scott will correct any confusion in the above.
> 

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 17:25:33 -0500

On Tuesday, Nov 5, 2002, at 16:48 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> [MAP] What you''ve described above is exactly correct. The applicable 
> WG to show up at with an explanation of what one wants and why is 
> IEPREP. We all agree that it is not the place to propose specific 
> changes to specific protocols,

I was talking about "specific changes to specific protocols" as the 
work that
seems to be out of scope for this WG.  You misread my note -- but that's
OK because you're really 100% consistent in misreading my notes so I 
expect
it these days.

> but if possibilites can't be mentioned, then we'll never get there.

> Nor can one go directly to SIP or DiffServ, or whatever WG and claim

You might think that, but I know of a lot of folks who have been VERY 
VERY successful
in doing just that with those WGs and with others.  It *does* require 
that one present
a sound *technical* case -- which is often missing from NCS and its 
contractors.

And there is most assuredly NOT WG consensus on the last two sentences 
from you above,
so "we" must mean "NCS and its contractors" in your sentence.  It does 
NOT mean
"this WG".

Ran

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

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:40:00 -0800 (PST)

> to need something. We already agreed that doesn't work.

Care to speculate on the reasons why?

                                -Bill