Subject: AW: The Emperor Has No Clothes: Is PANA actually useful?

From: "Tschofenig, Hannes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 22:12:18 +0200

Hi Dave,

thanks for your feedback. 
I guess your mail (and Jari's mail) try to be a little bit less biased
in this discussion. 

~snip~

> By contrast observations such as "there are better solutions" 

or 'different solutions'

> moves into the 
> fuzzier and more subjective realm of trying to predict market 

> preferences. The 
> IETF is not very good at making these predictions.  

That's very nicely phrased. I guess we could have a long discussion
about this subject and why other organizations do not use some IETF
protocols. We all know that there is the 'not invented here' problem,
sometimes a company marketing story ('company X has developed it's own
proprietary protocol') and in some other cases it is an IPR issue.

If we now raise the bar for IETF protocols to a level where we consider
work as 'successful' or 'good' when other organizations make use of
these protocols then we should change our workstyle a little bit. We
could just rubber stamp protocols these SDOs developed on their own ...

~snip~

A small comment when it comes to understand documents:

I have realized that it is popular in standardization organizations to
be temporarly and selectively confused about some things. 

I suspect that you can copy-and-paste Sam's mail, replace PANA with
another protocol and working group name, post it to the IETF mailing
list and you might get a similar response. 

> I would find it particularly helpful to have a concise 
> statement from someone 
> who says that PANA will not work.  Cannot be implemented 
> (properly) by virtue of 
> technical errors or documentation too confusing to 
> understand.  Or cannot be 
> deployed and used, by virtue of administrative complexity or, again, 
> documentation too confusing to understand.
> 
> Absent this, I will ask why it is productive to note that the 
> emperor is 
> pursuing an idiosynchratic sartorial style?

Sam accidently posted his mail shortly after the heated discussion of
PANA usage at the 3GPP2.
>From the comments on this mailing list it is obvious which company was
not favor for PANA (for whatever reason).

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Mohan Parthasarathy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 16:55:43 -0700 (PDT)

> list and you might get a similar response. 
Agreed. Perhaps, we should do this all working
groups in the IETF. I have no doubt in my mind
that this list will be flooded with countless
*opinions*. Perhaps, PANA is the first one
on the list and others to follow soon..

-mohan