Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Design teams for mobileip--(sharif)

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:11:32 -0500

I agree 100% with you Jim - something stinks in the MIP WG. This is why it
has been going on since 1993 with minor progress.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Bound [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Design teams for mobileip--(sharif)

You did not respond to my previous issue with your appeal regarding 3GPP
et al which I am not clear is valid or warranted.  But this one may have
some meat here is why.

I am on two design teams to work problems and get back to the working
groups here in the IETF (which ones are not relevent).  We formed these
teams "for" the working groups and asked for volunteers.  The list is
closed because the "design team" wanted it closed and the working group
does not care.

But in the case where a team is formed and the management team in the IETF
did not ask for volunteers from the working group then that is a closed
process because when the management team makes such decisions it is a
formal process.  As opposed to working group members going off and solving
a problem which is 'ad hoc'.  To then close that formal list is insult to
injury at a minimum to get input from the working group at a minimum.

Then the other problem with this for your appeal is as follows.  Why were
certain people put on this closed team and not others.  What
"discrimination" was used to determine who was part of this formal
process.  Was it fair discrimination to the working group as a whole?

This is a classic example of why the good-ole-boy-network needs fixing.

It is a bad precedent and I believe could potentially cause a legal
problem to the IETF which is the last thing we need here.  In a private
company,  private entity, or academic/research centers this is done often
and valid, but this is the IETF the open process for open standards.

I also understand that authors are not part of the design teams?  How was
that discrimination arrived at and seems not wise to me?

But then maybe there are perfect reasonable explanations for the above?

regards,
/jim

On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Phil Neumiller wrote:

> I guess this is another item to add to my appeal.  I believe this is
> setting a bad precedent for the IETF.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Phil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Roberts" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 12:08 PM
> Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Design teams for mobileip--(sharif)
> 
> 
> > Both fast handoff lists were open to begin with but due to some concerns
> > about the ability to make progress the ADs asked us to close them, so we
> > did.  The archives will be made public when the teams are done.
Versions of
> > each draft have been published and you are welcome to comment on them on
the
> > main list.

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:38:09 -0400

In my humble opinion MIP WG made strategic mistakes by
-not including paging into its charter (an area in which progress could
have been made in a reasonable amount of time)
-by including fast handover into the charter and getting into the
vicious circle between two mipv4 proposals rather than spinning it off
to Seamoby which stands for Seamless mobility but tries to do the paging
and context transfer.
- and (you can add others here)...

Glenn Morrow wrote:

>
>
> I agree 100% with you Jim - something stinks in the MIP WG. This is
> why it has been going on since 1993 with minor progress.
>

--
Behcet

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:11:02 -0400 (EDT)

thanks.  I know.  Back many years ago when Charlie and Dave came to IPv6
and presented the essential idea and I think draft 03 got most of what is
needed at that point.  Then the WG fixed the mobile parts to a fine tune.
Now we are just pontificating to the current spec of MIPv6.  Once we have
the answer to the security issue presented at IETF50 we should ship MIPv6
to PS and move on to all other subjects.  1993...man that is ridiculous by
anyones analysis and its not the WGs and authors fault.  I have seen this
in a few Areas.  I believe its usually the case of the authors initial
idea, the WG consensus idea, and the AD's idea.  The last part is the
problem.  The AD should not be providing "ideas" as AD but only as
individual WG member.  It causes them to have more power technically than
the rest of the WG.  This is plain wrong by any interpretation of the
founding IETF principles for this community.  It doesn't just happen in
MIP either.  The AD is only a MANAGER thats it. 

I for one am going be on things I see like this like a pit bull chasing a
meat truck.  Its another form of "bullying people".  And I have zero
tolerance for that and strong enough to tell them to stick it and record
it and use the recordings.  I am sure my drafts will suffer from these
comments to I am working on :----)

/jim