Subject: [Geopriv] Our meeting today

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:42:00 +0300

After I left the room I had the impression that we did not spend our 
time as well as we could have done it.

We discuss various documents that have been submitted and some feedback 
is being provided. That's good.

However, we often avoid the controversial discussions at the meeting and 
drag them from meeting to meeting. This adds delays.

Is there the impression that we are unable to make any progress during 
the meeting itself?

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:02:48 -0400

I think this is a difficult work group.  People do not compromise early
enough or well enough with each other, and as a result, we have very
contentious discussions both on the list and in the meeting.  We are often
attacking people rather than having technical discussions.

At this meeting, when agendas were proposed, there was not much discussion.

In this meeting, the elephant in the room was OBO.  We were NOT prepared to
discuss OBO.  We did not arrange the agenda in advance to discuss OBO and we
did not have enough of the right people in the room.  I think the chair
appropriately handled that situation.

I do think we are reluctant to have difficult discussions, because they tend
to degenerate.  I do think we could be more civil to each other.  I do think
we could be more cooperative.  I think we should have more comments that are
of the form "could we do this instead of that" rather than "the world will
stop spinning if we do that".  

We clearly have much more work to do.  We have to spend a lot more time with
each other.  Clearly, we can muddle through the way we have been doing, or
we can make a greater effort to work together better.

Brian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 7:42 AM
> To: GEOPRIV
> Subject: [Geopriv] Our meeting today
>

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:09:40 +0300

Nice mail, Brian.

Maybe you are right.

We could also schedule phone conference calls in order to make progress 
on some of the topics.

... just trying to come up with a more efficient work style.

Btw, this was not a critique towards the chair. I didn't say anything 
during agenda bashing either. I was just curious when I left the room.

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:16:58 -0500

Hannes,

I'm of a similar opinion.  Avoiding the discussion was an effective way of ensuring that the meeting didn't devolve into shouting.  However, I don't know how to resolve this without having that discussion, and the associated shouting.

It's entirely possible that if we continue to ignore these issues, that we become irrelevant.

On the unspoken topic, I hope that Ted is able to frame the problem so we can discuss this using new terminology so we don't get hung up on emotive labels.

We need to have this discussion and clear the issue.  I don't think that another long list discussion is going to resolve the problem.  Maybe your suggestion of conference calls is the right way to progress.

Cheers,
Martin 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> Sent: Thursday, 31 July 2008 12:42 PM
> To: GEOPRIV

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

---

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:33:05 +0100

Hannes,

> drag them from meeting to meeting. This adds delays.

A way forward maybe to stop revisiting our previous consensus decisions at
every meeting.

Example: At IETF69 it was decided that the Presence Event Package was the
choice for Geopriv for location. We now have a proposal to create a new
event package requiring us to revisit all the issues that drove the decision
at IETF69.  This is revisiting previous consensus.

Example: We have guiding principles that we agreed to - RFC3693/4.  These
documents state the rule-maker sets policy for location dissemination.  We
have a proposal to solve the 'OBO' problem that's runs afoul with these
guiding principles.  We are again revisiting previous consensus.

I think you get the idea....

-Marc-

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:35:14 +0300

I am not sure whether this is the right approach given that we now 
understand some things better.

I don't want to be walking into the wrong direction just because some 
folks made a decision 5 years ago.

---

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:53:15 +0100

You asked the question why we're not making any progress.

> folks made a decision 5 years ago.

I agree that we should do the right thing.  My answer is to your original
question.  You seem to imply above that the guiding principals of the wg are
obsolete.  But they are still the guiding principles that MUST be either
followed or changed.

-Marc-

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:01:25 -0500

At 08:35 AM 7/31/2008, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>I don't want to be walking into the wrong direction just because 
>some folks made a decision 5 years ago.

what about a decision from 1 year ago?

that didn't seem to matter to some folks who wrote an ID counter to 
that WG consensus.

A little consistency goes a long way, and this WG lacks that IMO

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:01:29 +0300

Hi Marc,
> obsolete.  But they are still the guiding principles that MUST be either

I don't assume that. I am fine with the work that was done in the past. 
It was done with the knowledge we had at that time. We learned 
additional things over time and got feedback from various stakeholders. 
I believe it is important to apply reality checks from time-to-time.

Ciao
Hannes

PS:
Please read also the following nice paper

D. Clark, J. Wroclawski, K. Sollins, B. Braden: “Tussle in Cyberspace: 
Defining Tomorrow’s Internet”, in IEEE/ACM TRANSACTIONS ON NETWORKING, 
VOL. 13, NO. 3, JUNE 2005
http://www.sigcomm.org/sigcomm2002/papers/tussle.pdf

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:34:55 +0300

> A little consistency goes a long way, and this WG lacks that IMO

When things don't fit your needs then past decisions don't matter for 
you either.

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:43:34 +0300

I would also like to stress that my comment regarding the group is not a 
critique towards Robert.
Everyone in the group had a chance to comment the charter on the list 
and at the beginning of the meeting when we did the agenda bashing.

I am wondering how we can avoid getting stuck on various issues. This 
has nothing todo with a chair but, as my discussions with Henning and 
Ted make me believe, a problem that we often talk past each other. I 
also got that impression at the interim meeting.

---

From: "Dawson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:30:22 -0500

I think Marc is right with respect to the specific question of how to
deal with pre-existing policy. We have to be prepared to either
re-evaluate or clarify previous policy where the root of contention
appears to be with respect to that policy.

On the one hand, there's no justification for picking and choosing which
policy is applicable for a given context. And on the other hand there is
no justification in adopting a dogmatic position with respect to
existing policy - whether it's through selective interpretation or
claiming it must be cast in stone.

So - the right thing, in this case, would be the revisiting of the
policy in the light current requirements and establishing whether there
is or isn't a problem. Then we can decide whether clarification or
modification is necessary and appropriate.

Cheers,
Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Marc Linsner
Sent: Thursday, 31 July 2008 11:53 PM
To: Hannes Tschofenig
Cc: GEOPRIV
Subject: Re: [Geopriv] Our meeting today

> folks made a decision 5 years ago.

I agree that we should do the right thing.  My answer is to your
original
question.  You seem to imply above that the guiding principals of the wg
are
obsolete.  But they are still the guiding principles that MUST be either
followed or changed.

-Marc-

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:58:44 +0300

I would also like to point out that there is sometimes a different view 
on what decisions have been made in the past. Example from today: The 
group had to re-agree that the possession model and the authorization 
model both have a place in our working group. One person seems to have 
forgotten that.

Another example: Jonathan indicated that we should make an assessment of 
the funtionality we want to get with a subscribe/notify mechanisms for 
SIP with regard to location. Then, we should investigate whether the 
presence event package is the best match. It may be; maybe it is not. 
For the moment we assume it is.

I don't think it is right to say that folks aren't allowed to submit a 
document that suggests different ideas just because they may conflict 
with what was said in the past.

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 10:31:54 -0400 (EDT)

Reading this dialogue I would strongly encourage the group to consider
using regular teleconferences as a mechanism to foster strong and positive
dialogue that allows the difficult decisions (consensus) to be made. I run
the standards process (actually more like facilitate) process in the OGC.
The majority of our standards work is done by teleconference and email
with face to face meetings used to achieve final consensus, set action
roadmaps, and foster personal relationships. OASIS, NENA, and W3C work the
same way.

>From a governance perspective, in order for teleconferences to work, you
need a chair to facilitate, a meeting agenda, and someone to take minutes
- and the minutes must capture decisions!

Just a thought.

Carl

> Hannes,
>
> I'm of a similar opinion.  Avoiding the discussion was an effective way of
> ensuring that the meeting didn't devolve into shouting.  However, I don't
> know how to resolve this without having that discussion, and the
> associated shouting.
>
> On the unspoken topic, I hope that Ted is able to frame the problem so we
> can discuss this using new terminology so we don't get hung up on emotive
> labels.
>
> We need to have this discussion and clear the issue.  I don't think that
> another long list discussion is going to resolve the problem.  Maybe your
> suggestion of conference calls is the right way to progress.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>

---

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:49:49 +0100

Brian,

I believe you are wrong!  We were prepared, please see below.

> appropriately handled that situation.
The OBO topic was launched long ago, it appears in
draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions-04.txt, from November
2007.  This draft is now at -06, it was presented to the wg for the first
time at the interim meeting June 12th.  I launched a discussion titled OBO
on the list 8 days after the interim meeting, please see:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg05729.html
The ensuing list discussion spanned at least 41 emails (a quick count) in
that thread.

I submitted draft-linsner-geopriv-obo-00 prior to the 00 deadline.  I asked
for agenda time to discuss the topic.  The agenda was updated July 18th
clearing showing a discussion on my draft.  Please see:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg06048.html
To save you reading the whole message:

"30m      Charter review                           Robert
          including "What kind of OBO-like work can we do?"
            (please review list discussion prior to meeting)
            draft-linsner-geopriv-obo-00.txt"

The right people in the room is a non-argument.  If you believe this has
bearing to IETF meeting procedures you can confirm this tonight at open mic
in the plenary.

Everything was done per correct procedure.

So, Brian, please explain your basis for your conclusion above.

-Marc-

---

From: "Brian Rosen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:08:28 -0400

The agenda had a CHARTER item on OBO: should an OBO discussion be in the
charter?  I assumed that such a DISCUSSION would be included.  That opens
the door to a dialog.

What I don't think we were prepared for was to have the discussion itself.
There was insufficient time in the agenda for that.  I don't think the right
people were there, because we didn't advertise the agenda item that way.

That's how I saw it.

If you didn't see it that way, then you should have addressed that in the
agenda; preferably before the meeting, but at least in the agenda bash.

An agenda item to discuss your draft, and the entire OBO question, would
have required substantially more than the time allotted in the agenda.

Brian

> From: Marc Linsner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:50 AM
> To: Brian Rosen; 'GEOPRIV'

---

From: "Winterbottom, James" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:32:10 -0500

Marc,

I would also spell out that there was consensus in Dallas to that the
identity extensions document merely needed a section explaining when OBO
was okay to use in order for it to move forward. This was done and no
feedback was provided on the updated draft.

The identity extensions draft is not only for OBO, indeed that was not
its initial target, its initial target was to address the need for an
end-point to provide additional terminal information to the LIS to
assist it in location determination. We have a formal requirement for
this in the L7 LCP Requirements and problem statement:

"Requirement L7-1: Identifier Choice

      The L7 LCP MUST be able to carry different identifiers or MUST
      define an identifier that is mandatory to implement.  Regarding
      the latter aspect, such an identifier is only appropriate if it is
      from the same realm as the one for which the location information
      service maintains identifier to location mapping."

My interpretation of this is that indirectly this work is already
chartered by the fact that we have said an L7 LCP needs to have it.

Regards
James.

PS, the audio streaming did not work for at least 2 people that were in
the jabber room last night that had very strong opinions on this stuff,
jabber updates I know are hard, but they were almost non-existent for
this session making remote participation unviable.

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf
> Of Marc Linsner
> Sent: Friday, 1 August 2008 1:50 AM
> > In this meeting, the elephant in the room was OBO.  We were NOT
prepared
> to
> > discuss OBO.  We did not arrange the agenda in advance to discuss
OBO
> and we
> bearing to IETF meeting procedures you can confirm this tonight at
open
> mic

---

From: Marc Linsner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 01:57:12 +0100

Brian,

I'm not complaining about how the meeting unfolded.

I'm simply disagreeing with your assertion that 'we' were not prepared to
discuss OBO.  Given my outline below of the chain of events leading up to
the meeting, I'm claiming everything was executed correctly, per IETF
procedures, to have such a discussion.

-Marc-