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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:26:30 EST

In a message dated 11/5/2002 5:24:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

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

[MAP] I don't understand why you continue to be so abusive in your responses 
to me (and others) on this list. It is totally uncalled for.

Let me clarify one thing first: I am not "NCS and its contractors". To be 
open, which I wish everyone would be, I am a contractor supported by DISA, 
which is responsible for standards and policies for the US Defense 
communications networks. My purpose is to push for support of emergency 
services in IP so that the US Defense communications networks can use IP for 
its voice and other traffic. (NCS has a different mission, but I believe any 
protocol changes can and must support both sets of requirements.)

As I clearly stated, I completely agree with your statement that "specific 
changes to specific protocols" are out of scope for IEPREP. But there seems 
to be a continuing disagreement/confusion on what IEPREP exists for and how 
"we (DISA)" are supposed to bring forward proposed requirements for emergency 
services. My statement was "The applicable WG to show up at with an 
explanation of what one wants and why is IEPREP".

Further, I stated that: "Nor can one go directly to SIP or DiffServ, or 
whatever WG and claim to need something. We already agreed that doesn't 
work." Yes, please read everything I write as if it is preceeded by "IMHO". I 
would like to hear from anyone who doesn't believe that statement. You didn't 
say that you didn't agree with my statement, only that there are "a lot of 
folks" who don't follow it. I know there are, and that's one of the things I 
thought "we (WG)" are trying to fix.

I thought the point of draft-ietf-sip-guidelines-05 was that requirements had 
to be agreed in SIPPING before specific protocol changes were proposed to 
SIP. And for the emergency work, I thought "we (WG)" had agreed that IEPREP 
had to agree on requirements before anything was brought to SIPPING (or other 
WGs).

If I have misunderstood the process that "we (WG and DISA)" are attempting to 
follow, I hope Scott or Allison or Kimberly will set me (and others) straight.

Mike Pierce
Artel

---

From: Bill Woodcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 09:06:18 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
    > I don't understand why you continue to be so abusive in your
    > responses to me (and others) on this list.

Ran hasn't been abusive.  Ran has been a remarkable model of restraint and
decorous moderation.  Ran has simply been asking you questions which
you're ignoring or refusing to answer.

    > My purpose is to push for support of emergency services in IP so
    > that the US Defense communications networks can use IP for
    > its voice and other traffic.

How many times do you need to be told that THIS IS NOT OKAY?  If you don't
have the intellectual honesty and strength of conviction to say something
because YOU believe it, THERE IS NO PLACE FOR YOU IN THE IETF.

You are participating as an INDIVIDUAL, not representing an organization.

We want to know what YOU think.  We already know that organizations are
incapable of thought.

    > There seems to be a continuing disagreement/confusion on
    > what IEPREP exists for...

"The working group will devlop a Requirements for Internet Emergency
Preparedness in the Internet RFC which will detail the specific functions
and technologies needed to provide support for Emergency Preparedness
systems in the Internet" and "a BCP to identify mechanisms to provide
deterministic behavior of applications, mechanisms for authentication and
authorization, and recommendations for application design with existing
protocols."  Specifically:

   "Deliverables

    Best Current Practice: IETF Recommendations for the Emergency
    Telecommunications Service using existing protocols - what can be done
    with existing protcols and what can not be done.

    Informational: Requirements for Internet Emergency Preparedness in the
    Internet. Framework for Supporting Internet Emergency Preparedness in
    IP Telephony."

It also contains the remarkably unfortunate phrase "The international
community needs advice," and fails to provide for a needs analysis before
launching into requirements.  And both of these documents, though actually
in early draft stage presently, were due three months ago.

Some of that seems pretty ill-conceived, but I don't see where the
ambiguity you're finding in it lies.

    > ...and how "we (DISA)" are supposed to bring forward proposed
    > requirements for emergency services.

Sorry, who asked DISA, or any portion of the DoD of the US or any country
to bring anything forward?

    > I stated that: "Nor can one go directly to SIP or DiffServ, or
    > whatever WG and claim to need something. We already agreed that
    > doesn't work."  I would like to hear from anyone who doesn't believe
    > that statement.

Of course that's false.  SIPPING and DIFFSERV exist for the purpose of
development within their areas.  That's what they're there for.  They do
work at each IETF, brought to them by responsible individuals within the
IETF, in exactly the manner that Ran, or I, or any other individual with
relevant business would do so.  SIPPING, at any rate, actually completes
that work and produces standards which are implemented in the actual
production network.  Every day.

The problem isn't SIPPING or DIFFSERV.  The issue is that they're
successfully defending themselves against a violation of the IETF
standards process, and you're whining about it.

    > I thought the point of draft-ietf-sip-guidelines-05 was that
    > requirements had to be agreed in SIPPING before specific protocol
    > changes were proposed to SIP.

And where exactly do you see a "SIP Guidelines" in the deliverables for
this working group?  I see two deliverables, both well overdue, and no
contribution to either of them from you.  In this mailing list, please
discuss the deliverables for this working group, before wandering off to
tell other working groups what they should be doing.

    > And for the emergency work, I thought "we (WG)" had agreed that
    > IEPREP had to agree on requirements before anything was brought to
    > SIPPING (or other WGs).

Amen to that.

                                -Bill

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

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 12:59:48 -0500

On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 11:26 America/Montreal, [email-masked] 
wrote:
> Let me clarify one thing first: I am not "NCS and its contractors". To 
> be open, which I wish everyone would be, I am a contractor supported 
> by DISA, which is responsible for standards and policies for the US 
> Defense communications networks. My purpose is to push for support of 
> emergency services in IP so that the US Defense communications 
> networks can use IP for its voice and other traffic. (NCS has a 
> different mission, but I believe any protocol changes can and must 
> support both sets of requirements.)

Openness is much appreciated.  Given current JCS restrictions on US 
Defence
communications IP networks, not clear to me that things being discussed 
here
(e.g. VoIP, DiffServ) has much applicability to those.  Clarity and 
openness
are always good.

> Further, I stated that: "Nor can one go directly to SIP or DiffServ, 
> or whatever WG and claim to need something. We already agreed that 
> doesn't work." Yes, please read everything I write as if it is 
> preceeded by "IMHO". I would like to hear from anyone who doesn't 
> believe that statement. You didn't say that you didn't agree with my 
> statement, only that there are "a lot of folks" who don't follow it. I 
> know there are, and that's one of the things I thought "we (WG)" are 
> trying to fix.

I disagree with it entirely and I don't believe it.  I know a LOT of 
folks who go
direct to other WGs with their needs, desires, proposals -- because 
that is the
proper normal IETF way of doing things.  And MOST of those folks who do 
that
are successful with that approach, at least to the extent that their 
proposals
are sensible, feasible, and clearly presented.

This WG does NOT exist to prohibit folks from taking their needs, 
desires, and
goals direct to other WGs (provided those items are within the other 
WG's charter).
For example, it is ENTIRELY proper for me to take my 
needs/goals/desires/proposals
for SIP changes directly to the SIP WG.  This WG is NOT trying to 
change that --
in fact if this WG tried to change that it would be violating IETF 
process rules.
Openness of IETF *requires* that anyone can take any 
concern/issue/idea/proposal
to any WG (within that WG's charter, so one does not take proposed 
changes to OSPF
into the SIP WG for example) AND requires that such an approach be 
valid/proper.

> requirements
> had to be agreed in SIPPING before specific protocol changes were 
> proposed to SIP.
> And for the emergency work, I thought "we (WG)" had agreed that IEPREP 
> had
> to agree on requirements before anything was brought to SIPPING (or 
> other WGs).

I certainly understand that if I had changes to propose to SIP I can 
take them
direct to SIPPING.   SIPPING might or might not act on those proposals, 
just
as it might or might not act on proposals from here.  As it happens, I 
don't have
any changes to propose to SIP, so for me personally that is irrelevant.

And attempts by any AD or WG Chair to stop one from doing that would 
certainly be
appealable (and such an AD action would be very likely to be overturned 
on appeal,
in my own reading of the tea leaves, on grounds that it is contrary to 
IETF openness
as a standards-body).

This group got created because DISA/NCS wanted to BYPASS the normal 
IETF way
of doing things and have its own WG.  I was at all of the BOFs and that 
goal
was quite clear (and remains VERY objectionable in my own views and 
those
of some few others).  I will get publicly upset about that every time 
the topic
comes up, guaranteed, because I think it is flat out wrong.

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 15:53:09 -0500 (EST)

> for SIP changes directly to the SIP WG

nit - we (the TSV area) set up the SIPPING WG to be a gatekeeper
for SIP so the needs/goals/desires/proposals would need to go there 

I basically agree with Ran on the paths here but will disagree with his last
paragraph.  When Allison & I got this group chartered we wanted
to have a place where folks with various needs/assumptions/backgrounds
could have a discussion to see 
	1/ what can be done with the net of today (as Dave Crocker
	   so clearly suggested in an early BOF)
	2/ what sort of realistic requirements might be developed
	   for changes in IETF protocols that would make things
	   better for the support of ieprep traffic (the sip
	   requirements are an example of this)
	3/ produce a "helpful hints' document (maybe BCP) to
	   help organizations who want to purchase ieprep services
	   understand what is reasonable to ask for considering
	   the Intrenet of today (and maybe near future)

We wanted this process to provide a reality check for people who 
might have unrealistic expectations of what can be done in the 
Internet and to better understand what sorts of things are
seen as needed by the people who want to purchase such services
and, maybe, explore ways to bridge the gap in some places.

This group will not modify any protocols on its own but
that does not mean that it can not think about areas where 
changes could be useful as long as there is an understanding 
of what is a protocol change (which the IETF might do) and a
ISP business model or architecture change (which we can not do)

Scott

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:45:20 -0500

On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 15:53 America/Montreal, Scott Bradner 

> for SIP so the needs/goals/desires/proposals would need to go there

Nit accepted.

> paragraph.

Are you saying that I could NOT (i.e. would not be permitted) to take
proposals that I (quite hypothetically) have directly to SIPPING ?

(NB: As noted before, I do not happen to have any proposals relating
to SIP or SIPPING.  I rarely work much above layer-3).

If yes, that seems like a really huge violation of IETF openness
and one that would be objectionable to most of the IETF community.

(And if the answer is yes, I'm likely to take this up on the ietf
discussion mailing list for broader community discussion because
it would be so radical a change in our ways.)

My suspicion is that you created IEprep as an alternative path,
for a particular community, not proscriptively to block other normal
IETF paths of discussion/progress -- but the above sentence makes
this far from clear.

Please clarify.

Ran

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:32:58 -0500 (EST)

> proposals that I (quite hypothetically) have directly to SIPPING ?

nope - any individual can do that

> My suspicion is that you created IEprep as an alternative path,

its my opinion that any WG can do what an individual can do (take 
ideas to an IETF working group)

this WG is a place to discuss a particular set of topics so that 
maybe consensus ideas can be taken to other groups rather than
bunches of people taking their individual ideas

but that would not stop an individual from doing what they thought best

Scott

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:14:57 -0500

Thanks for the clarification.
That seems quite normal and reasonable to me.

Ran

On Wednesday, Nov 6, 2002, at 18:32 America/Montreal, Scott Bradner