Subject: [P2PSIP] WGLC on draft-ietf-p2psip-base-06

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:28:59 -0500

This message announces a Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-p2psip-base-06.  Due to the size of the draft and the lack of
extensive reviews, the WGLC will run until Dec 11th.  Please get your
comments in ASAP.  Those of you who have committed to review the document in
depth, this is your deadline, and we would appreciate your review before the
last minute.

Brian
<as co-chair>

---

From: "David A. Bryan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:23:18 -0500

I know Brian's call here is in response to Cullen formally objecting
to Robert about my taking time to confirm the sense of the room on
list, but I think we need to apply process rules uniformly here,
regardless of who it is that wants the WG to move on their schedule.

I think the WG is being pushed to skip a step. I would like to
formally ask that the WGLC be started after adequate time has been
given to respond to my poll for the sense of the mailing list on
wether the document is ready to go to WGLC.

This WG just had a very active discussion (started by one of the
editors of this draft, actually) about allowing adequate time for the
list to review hums. A week was deemed the minimal acceptable time.
Hiroshima was a very exceptional meeting. Very few of our regular
attendees were there. As far as I know, only one of the authors of
this draft was present. Both chairs and many of the other major
contributors were not present.

In light of these facts, while one could argue the hum was a "sense of
the room" question, rather than a consensus call (and therefore needs
no list confirmation), I felt it did. I was the chair tasked with the
work of listening to the audio, assembling minutes, and confirming
hums on list. I didn't feel enough participants were present for the
chairs or AD to say the room really reflected the WG. I made a
decision to send email asking for list confirmation if we should go to
WGLC out of an abundance of caution. One can argue I didn't have to or
shouldn't have asked the list for confirmation, but I felt it was the
right thing to do, and issued the call for comments as chair. For
consistency we should allow time for folks to comment.

I understand this is a minor and procedural point. If folks care they
can object once we go to WGLC, of course. However, considering how
long this document has been on the table, and the long periods of time
the editors have sometimes allowed to pass between revisions, waiting
five more days to officially start WGLC does not adversely impact the
work of the group and is the right thing to do to ensure consistent
process is followed.

(That said, please folks, start reviewing now!!! The editors need your
comments!!!)

To make it clear to the WG, I personally support taking this document
to WGLC (and have indicated as such before) largely as an impetus to
get reviewers and WG participants to comment on the document, which in
my opinion still needs some work, but needs reviews to get that work
done. However I do not feel all participants have been given adequate
time to voice disagreement with taking this to WGLC, and feel we need
to allow time for that.

David

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Rosen, Brian <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
>

---

From: Song Haibin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:02:10 +0800

I agree with taking the document to WGLC if the authors take the TURN
discovery usage out of this document and leave it to another task of a
generic service discovery mechanism. It's weird to have two different
service discovery mechanisms. If the authors think their TURN discovery
mechanism is good, then how about writing it in a separate proposal for
service discovery (not limited to TURN usage), and we will have several
candidate drafts.

Xie Xie,
Haibin

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>On Behalf Of David A. Bryan
>Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 5:23 PM
>To: Rosen, Brian
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] WGLC on draft-ietf-p2psip-base-06
>
>I know Brian's call here is in response to Cullen formally 
>objecting to Robert about my taking time to confirm the sense 
>of the room on list, but I think we need to apply process 
>rules uniformly here, regardless of who it is that wants the 
>WG to move on their schedule.
>
>formally ask that the WGLC be started after adequate time has 
>been given to respond to my poll for the sense of the mailing 
>list on wether the document is ready to go to WGLC.
>
>This WG just had a very active discussion (started by one of 
>the editors of this draft, actually) about allowing adequate 
>time for the list to review hums. A week was deemed the 
>minimal acceptable time.
>Hiroshima was a very exceptional meeting. Very few of our 
>regular attendees were there. As far as I know, only one of 
>the authors of this draft was present. Both chairs and many of 
>the other major contributors were not present.
>
>In light of these facts, while one could argue the hum was a 
>"sense of the room" question, rather than a consensus call 
>(and therefore needs no list confirmation), I felt it did. I 
>was the chair tasked with the work of listening to the audio, 
>assembling minutes, and confirming hums on list. I didn't feel 
>enough participants were present for the chairs or AD to say 
>the room really reflected the WG. I made a decision to send 
>email asking for list confirmation if we should go to WGLC out 
>of an abundance of caution. One can argue I didn't have to or 
>shouldn't have asked the list for confirmation, but I felt it 
>was the right thing to do, and issued the call for comments as 
>chair. For consistency we should allow time for folks to comment.
>
>I understand this is a minor and procedural point. If folks 
>care they can object once we go to WGLC, of course. However, 
>considering how long this document has been on the table, and 
>the long periods of time the editors have sometimes allowed to 
>pass between revisions, waiting five more days to officially 
>start WGLC does not adversely impact the work of the group and 
>is the right thing to do to ensure consistent process is followed.
>
>To make it clear to the WG, I personally support taking this 
>document to WGLC (and have indicated as such before) largely 
>as an impetus to get reviewers and WG participants to comment 
>on the document, which in my opinion still needs some work, 
>but needs reviews to get that work done. However I do not feel 
>all participants have been given adequate time to voice 
>disagreement with taking this to WGLC, and feel we need to 
>allow time for that.
>
>David
>
>> draft-ietf-p2psip-base-06.  Due to the size of the draft and 
>the lack 
>> of extensive reviews, the WGLC will run until Dec 11th.  Please get 
>> your comments in ASAP.  Those of you who have committed to 
>review the 
>> document in depth, this is your deadline, and we would 
>appreciate your 
>> review before the last minute.
>>
>> Brian
>> <as co-chair>
>>