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

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:24:56 -0400

Hi,

    is there some other list on which this thread could be continued?  I'm
happy to have it here as long as it's specific complaints or concerns about
this WG, but it seems to be drifting towards general IETF process issues.

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Bound [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 9:59 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Design teams for mobileip--(sharif)
> 
> 
> WOW.  A bit extreme even for me. We don't want WGs approving 
> DT's.  DT's
> as 2418 states can be a hallway conversation.  I think 
> keeping a record of
> DTs defined by the ADs with who was on them would be a very good idea
> though.  That way if the DTs are always the same people we 
> can see that.
> One they are hard working, knowledgable, and will volunteer 
> for stuff. Or
> two they have the afforementioned traits but also part of the control
> process for the IETF.  The second is the issue.
> 
> I believe the first step to an AD that breaks the rules or is 
> otherwise
> ill behaved is to contact the IESG Chair.  If not resolved 
> then IAB appeal
> and if still not resolved ISOC appeal.
> 
> /jim
> 
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> 
> > I suggest that RFC 2418 be amended (as is already followed 
> by many WGs)
> > in view of the excessive use of DT's (making IETF look like 
> ETSI, CCITT, etc.)
> > to mandate a WG approval of each DT and its closedness or opennes
> > and bring penalties for WG chairs who do not follow the rules
> > and also
> > mandatory vote of confidence in IETF meetings for WG chairs and ADs.
> > 
> > Food for thought.
> > 
> > Scott Bradner wrote:
> > 
> > > note that teh output of design teams is input for working 
> groups - anything
> > > that a design team does can be modified or undone by the WG
> > >
> > > Scott
> > 
> > --
> > Behcet
> > 
>

---

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:00:28 -0500

Jim,

I really don't think the ADs are the problem. I think that the starting
requirements were the problem and people have continually avoiding issues
for the sake of getting a draft passed. i.e. let's wait until this becomes
an RFC before they even try to guage whether or not the requirement must be
handled. 

Now that we are discussing requirements, people are requirement shaping to
fit their pre-conceived solutions.

There are also competing access specific solutons that do meet many of the
requirements as best as they can because they could not change IP itself.
This WG is supposed to do that. I am actually beginning to be suspect of
some of the vendors in the WG of avoiding issues on purpose in order to
maximize the potential of revenues in terms of IPR and equipment sales from
these access specific solutions. Sometimes requirements are avoided because
the vendors want to sell even more hardware and software to the providers.
The MIP WG is a cellular industry turf-war. MIP is routers invading the
cellular real-estate market.

This is the ying and yang between the Industry, ADs, IESG, IAB and the MIP
WG - lack of communication, sabotage and delay due to business interests,
basic ignorance of ramifications shaded via mal-aligned ideological
reasoning and arrogance. 

I wouldn't blame it on the pawns too much; although, I don't see the IESG,
IAB and ADs as pawns but rather Bishops and Rooks. The people bantering over
the same issues for almost 9 years in the WG are the pawns.

If you believe an AD is at fault talk to them. I have found almost all of
them to be very insightful - even if I do not agree with their point of
view. 

I can't really see this as the problem. Getting a draft to RFC status is not
on my top priority. Getting the right solution is. 

I do not believe that this was the first time discussions about MIP and
security issues occurred? 

It is more likely that these issues were mass-hypnotically or ideologically
ignored; hardly a blindside. 

This is, of course, only IMOOCC (In My Opinion Of Constuctive Criticism) for
the group as an amorphous black-whole. This may not be seen as "positive"
but I do.

Thank You,

Glenn

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Bound [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 9:11 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Design teams for mobileip--(sharif)

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

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, 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.
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 2:29 PM
> 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.