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

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:08:07 -0400

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.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Neumiller [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 12:53 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Design teams for mobileip--(sharif)
> 
> 
> Aren't IETF lists supposed to be public?  This seems to be a inner
> clique thing going on here Phil.  I would like the AD to 
> speak up on this.
> I think the MIP DT mail lists NEED to be accesible to the entire WG
> at all times, as they are in SeaMoby.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Phil
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Roberts" <[email-masked]>
> >
> > Oh, and mailing list archive locations will be posted when 
> the teams are
> > done.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> 
>

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:08:47 -0500

I guess this is another item to add to my appeal.  I believe this is
setting a bad precedent for the IETF.

Thanks,

Phil

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:28:40 -0400 (EDT)

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

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:37:15 -0500

Hi Jim (Bound),

I was waiting to see if there was any WG consenus on the 3G bias.  So
far, from what I have seen posted (and it probably has not been given
enough time), people are happy with the way 3G issues seem to dominate
the MIP WG agenda.  I have restated my case privately to two people and
that may have helped explain my position better.  I will not restate it  here.

I am willing to listen to a voices of reason in the MIP and SeaMoby WGs.
Here is my primary issue (already  explained but sometimes a different
explantation is good):

1).  The IETF's primary job is to extend, promote, architect, and design the
       global Internet.

2).  Cellular networks are private, walled garden systems, that will BORROW
       work as needed from the IETF, to reach their own goals which includes
       charging their users exhorbitant fees that go directly into the pockets of
       tax zelous governments throughout the world.  In the US these moneys
       are used to pay down the national debt.

3).  The less heard voices, of wireless PAN and wireless LAN (many grassroots
      movements (its the Linux of wireless)), have a better Internet model IMHO,
      and are under-represented in the IETF or bullied out of position by big
      cellular/carrier $.

If you differ in opinion, that is fine.  However, I will stick to mine.  If you can
argue differently please do.

Thanks,

Phil

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:20:41 -0400 (EDT)

Hi Phil,

Good logical come back and position.  I hear you.  Some of my response is
thats life and the strong survive and the weak die.  Weak at different
times is different things.  But the key to our processes here is the test
of fairness.  If it can be proved that the principle of fairness has been
usurped by our process I will stand behind you at the appeal as one person
in this community.  I am just not sure that principle has been broken.

> that may have helped explain my position better.  I will not restate it  here.

You don't need any consensus to state an appeal that POISED process is to
cover individual views and fairness or in this case a technology idea set 
not being permitted to be seen.  But I have never heard of any case where
a draft was not permitted to be submitted to a working group.  There was
one and it was back in the CIDR working group during the Private Address
Wars.
 
> 1).  The IETF's primary job is to extend, promote, architect, and design the

I would not agree with extend, promote, architect, or design the Internet.
But only protocols for the use by the Internet.  I am being very picky
about the words in conjunction with the Internet.  The end result of the
IETF work permits the market to promote, design, and architect the
operation of the Internet.  But I think I get your drift and agree with it
but in a core wording sense applying the exact words to Internet can be
challenged.
 
>        are used to pay down the national debt.

True. Its a form of capitalism and these are the strong in an economic
sense, hence; they have power yes.  I accept that it is just the way it is
today.  Private Enterprise can change this if they so desire and I believe
monopolies that are truly of that state are wrong and cause robber barron
capitalism and not enlightened capitalism.  But I don't see the technical
or architectural case in our community where we can do anything about this
in the IETF.
 
>       and are under-represented in the IETF or bullied out of position by big

I realize this and it happens everyday somewhere in all enterprise that is
just life.  But if someone is being bullied in the IETF and their ideas
and drafts are not being presented by the IETF Announce List or Chairs are
not giving them time to discuss their ideas with a working group then that
is another matter.  I have not heard anyone claim this fact.
 
> argue differently please do.

I don't see the base for the appeal still.  I do see the pain your stating
and we may be missing on the Internet a good view and idea but I don't
think its the fault of the IETF at all from the above bullets.

But I was responding in my last mail to the issue of fairness in the
design team choice via a formal IETF process as opposed to a bunch of us
having some beers and coming up with ideas on napkins and then writing a
draft.  As an engineer I can say I don't want to have a beer with that
person cause they annoy me or are to square or whatever and draw on the
napkin what I like with who I like.  But if I was a member of a formal
entity with title and role then that is a different matter and I would
have to be very careful to always remain objective technically and about
people.

regards,
/jim

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:43:01 -0400 (EDT)

another example one could get absurd about is 3GPP2 who should be
mandating IPv6 instead of trying to use IPv4 and MIPv4 for a billion
mobile nodes.  The place to fix that error is not here in the IETF but
elswhere to use IPv6 and MIPv6 as will be done with 3GPP.
Clearly some vendors don't want that to happen and it will be a good and
technical battle to usurp them but its not to be fought here.  Likewise
the battle of how wireless is deployed and integrated into the Internet
battle is not here in the IETF its elsewhere and that will be a great
battle that has just started.  I don't care what the IETF even thinks
about the issue.  But I do care that we figure out here all variants of
handoffs, context transfer, et al.  Thats our job here not the former.
And that is enough technical work to go around.

regards, 
/jim

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT)

>       and are under-represented in the IETF or bullied out of position by big

There's a good reason why wireless PAN and wireless LAN are
"under-represented" in the IETF. That's because the standardization of
these technologies does not occur in the IETF. If you want to influence
the standardization of these technologies, I would advise you to attend
the IEEE 802.11 and 802.15 WGs. IEEE 802 is next meeting in Orlando, FL
May 14-18, 2001. Info is available from the IEEE 802 web site:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/index.html

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:15:46 -0400

Phil,
  Sorry to bring this up again. I think that there two problems here that needs
to be addressed:
1. WG members were not consulted when DTs were closed. Jim Bound says other WG
chairs know, this how come Mobile IP WG chairs do not?
2. The same has been repeated over maybe 3 times MIPv6 DT, MIPv4 DT and Security
DT (?).

Phil Roberts wrote:

> did.

I saw this movie before (another WG chair made similar statements without
providing any proof). Phil do you mind providing any evidence on this?

> The archives will be made public when the teams are done.  Versions of

  I know where one of the lists is located. I can tell more on how the list was
closed, etc., if required

  The remedy to the situation is quite simple: WG chairs should apologize, at
the least.
  And thanks to Phil Neumiller for bringing this up.
--
Behcet

---

From: Patrice Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:16:45 -0700 (PDT)

> setting a bad precedent for the IETF.

I suggest that you read section 6.5 of RFC 2418 before you add more items to
your crusade. Closed design teams are OK, when the ADs are in agreement. In
this particular case, they were.

Note, however, that the goal of the MIPv4 design team was to consolidate all 5
Internet Drafts into one, so attendance was limited to people that were
authors of one of the I-Ds. Of course, the once the merging was completed, the
WG had the ability to comment on the merged draft.

PatC