Subject: [netlmm] Conclusion of Consensus Call: Way Forward on NETLMM Solution

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:32:48 -0800

All,
The consensus call on the NETLMM solution choice has concluded. Based on
the responses received, there is no significant opposition to the
decision made in San Diego. So, the consensus reached at the San Diego
meeting holds and we will proceed with defining a PMIP-based solution in
the WG. 

We will announce a consensus call shortly to determine a base WG
document to move the work forward. 

Thanks,
The Chairs. 

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

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:17:26 +0100

> document to move the work forward.

I will appeal this.

1.  Without asking the companion question to the last question asked in
    San Diego, of how many people would find it acceptable to move forward
    with the Design Team proposal, you can't know whether you have consensus
    or not, so it's bogus to call it a consensus.

2.  Most of the people commenting on the list after your consensus call were
    of a different opinion from the one you voice above; calling the numbers
    'not significant' is not good enough for this - you should present a
    summary of the comments made, and also the numbers of people who responded
    to your consensus call, and for or against (or expressing some other view).

	Henrik

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:33:56 +0100

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> All, The consensus call on the NETLMM solution choice has 
>> concluded. Based on the responses received, there is no significant
>>  opposition to the decision made in San Diego. So, the consensus 
>> reached at the San Diego meeting holds and we will proceed with 
>> defining a PMIP-based solution in the WG.
>> 

I will support the appeal.

Other SDOish techniques of room packing at WG meeting is something to
avoid.  There were about 80votes at meeting.  One sees about 10 or so
people regularly posting here.  This looks like a 1 order of magnitude
difference - eyebrow raising.

I will continue to support PMIP-based solution as well - ie I'll vote
for which draft to consider as base, and eventually suggest to combine
them all (why voting on this anyways?).

However, where I feel a vote is needed is on the status of the
documents.  If the question is asked, I'll vote informational-pmip
because SDO is fine with that status and because not much work is needed
to complete an informational document.  And because SDO is the main
customer of the pmip solution.  And because with an SDO requirement we
can have a much clearer idea about the mn-ar interface (see 16ng) and
this solves many issues we're currently discussing here.

Let's put it also this way: one doesn't want the PMIP development
timeline be bogged down with requirements to make it work over other
MN-AR interfaces than that SDO's.  One doesn't want the timeline bogged
down with IPR issues either.  SDO won't be happy to know PMIP isn't
ready because IETF figures out how to run PMIP over eg Bluetooth, figure
out the IPR issues because: SDO doesn't run Bluetooth and because SDO
solves its IPR issues in its own right.

Or, the Standards Track is where one needs to ensure IPR is ok and a
variety of link-layers are supported.

Alex

> 
> 1.  Without asking the companion question to the last question asked
>  in San Diego, of how many people would find it acceptable to move 
> forward with the Design Team proposal, you can't know whether you 
> have consensus or not, so it's bogus to call it a consensus.
> 
> 2.  Most of the people commenting on the list after your consensus 
> call were of a different opinion from the one you voice above; 
> calling the numbers 'not significant' is not good enough for this - 
> you should present a summary of the comments made, and also the 
> numbers of people who responded to your consensus call, and for or 
> against (or expressing some other view).
> 
> 
> 
> Henrik
> 
> _______________________________________________ netlmm mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
>

---

From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:19:20 -0800

Hi Henrik,
We believe we followed the right course of action in conducting this
consensus call, even though the outcome is not satisfactory to some of
us. 

>From the call conducted on the list, here are the details: 

- 4 people supported the decision of moving forward with PMIP, out of
which 2 of them were at San Diego as well and had voted the same. 

- 4 people objected to the decision, out of which 3 of them were at San
Diego as well and had voted for a solution other than PMIP. 

- 4 people said it was too early to make the decision and that we should
wait to see revised versions of the PMIP draft and keep all the
solutions on the table for now. 

In looking at this, we don't see any substantial opposition to the
approach causing a need to change direction. 

Regards,
Vidya

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 2:17 AM
> To: Narayanan, Vidya
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [netlmm] Conclusion of Consensus Call: Way 
> Forward on NETLMM Solution
> 
> 
> > The consensus call on the NETLMM solution choice has 
> concluded. Based 
> > on the responses received, there is no significant 
> opposition to the 
> > meeting holds and we will proceed with defining a 
> PMIP-based solution 
> > in the WG.
> >

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:50:09 +0200

Henrik, all,

I feel your pain about the situation. This issue has been very
divisive for the group, and this is never an easy position to be in
when trying to reach consensus on how to move forward. And in
the end there will be some unhappy people.

Henrik, with regards to your comment about the last question we should
first try and understand what the meaning of that question was to
begin with. As you recall, the group first was very clear in wanting
to go have just one standard in this space. Yet, when we asked the
second question the group was quite divided on what approach to
choose. While one approach had a majority, at least my interpretation
of the situation was that this was not enough to judge rough consensus
alone.

At that point we were essentially in a deadlock. On Margaret's
suggestion we asked a final question. My interpretation of the
rationale for that question was that the group needs to decide what
they want to do, given the results of the earlier questions. In
particular, is the group sufficiently interested in having one
solution such that it is willing to pick the closest "winner" of the
previous question as a way to break this deadlock? It seemed to me
that the WG was expressing that it would rather choose one path now,
even if the consensus was extremely rough. This was also a check to
ensure that this one way forward, while clear is not the preferred way
forward by all, at least does not seem to harbor a major objection by
rough consensus.

This was my understanding at the time, and remains so upon closer
reflection replaying the events over and over in my mind. I hope that
this matches what most people recollect as well, but someone please
correct me if I am wrong.

In any case, under the above model I am not quite sure if there is an
easy companion to the last question that we could have asked. If we had
asked questions about the other alternatives, how would you have
interpreted the results -- particularly if they had been in conflict with
the previous question? We could have continued asking more questions
that day, perhaps there would have been some more nuanced
variants of the questions that would have made sense. But, I cannot
imagine a different outcome that would not have either overturned
our previous consensus that the group settle on a single way forward,
or got us out of the deadlock we were in. What I saw that day is a group
that chose a path over continued deadlock. I would suggest the group
to stay on that path, because anything else essentially puts us back to
square one.

Jari

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:12:43 -0800

> difference - eyebrow raising.

I have to agree with what Alex said here. I don't know
how these things normally work but I believe there were
many people who voted during the meeting who had never
previously participated in wg activities, and that
somehow doesn't seem fair to those of us who have.

Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:14:44 +0100

Very well.  The way I see this, is that if the group truly did
*not* have consensus on one way forward, (which I believe to be
true), then not asking the companion question, which would have
been "How many people would be comfortable going with the DT solution
exclusively" potentially hides a non-consensus case, and *forces*
the choice of a path *for which there isn't rough consensus*.

Asking the companion question would reveal whether we had found
a consensus path or not; refusing to ask the question leaves us
not knowing, and potentially leaves us with a path forward for
which there isn't consensus, rough or otherwise.

I believe the 45/30 hands during the meeting reflected the non-
consensus of the meeting, and I don't believe the chosen way of
bypassing that changes the fact of non-consensus.

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:01:19 +0100

Hi Fred,

> somehow doesn't seem fair to those of us who have.

It seems to be rather contrary to the definition of rough consensus
in BCP 95:

   Rough consensus and running code - We make standards based on the
      combined engineering judgement of our participants and our real-
      world experience in implementing and deploying our specifications.

An hour in the room and a hand seems to have been equivalent with
a year of mailing list participation or design team work, which
seems to assume equivalent engineering understanding and judgement
in the two cases.

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:08:09 +0100

Hi Alex,

> variety of link-layers are supported.

Thanks, Alex.

This makes sense to me.  But I have the feeling in this case that the
deck is stacked against working out something sensible.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:29:52 +0100

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>>>> concluded. Based on the responses received, there is no 
>>>> significant opposition to the decision made in San Diego. So, 
>>>> the consensus reached at the San Diego meeting holds and we 
>>>> will proceed with defining a PMIP-based solution in the WG.
>>>> 
>>>> We will announce a consensus call shortly to determine a base 
>>>> WG document to move the work forward.
>>> I will appeal this.
>> Other SDOish techniques of room packing at WG meeting is something 
>> to avoid.  There were about 80votes at meeting.  One sees about 10 
>> or so people regularly posting here.  This looks like a 1 order of 
>> magnitude difference - eyebrow raising.
>> 
>> I will continue to support PMIP-based solution as well - ie I'll 
>> vote for which draft to consider as base, and eventually suggest to
>>  combine them all (why voting on this anyways?).
>> 
>>  because SDO is fine with that status and because not much work is 
>> needed to complete an informational document.  And because SDO is 
>> the main customer of the pmip solution.  And because with an SDO 
>> requirement we can have a much clearer idea about the mn-ar 
>> interface (see 16ng) and this solves many issues we're currently 
>> discussing here.
>> 
>> timeline be bogged down with requirements to make it work over 
>> other MN-AR interfaces than that SDO's.  One doesn't want the 
>> timeline bogged down with IPR issues either.  SDO won't be happy to
>>  know PMIP isn't ready because IETF figures out how to run PMIP
>> over eg Bluetooth, figure out the IPR issues because: SDO doesn't
>> run Bluetooth and because SDO solves its IPR issues in its own
>> right.
>> 
>> Or, the Standards Track is where one needs to ensure IPR is ok and 
>> a variety of link-layers are supported.
> 
> Thanks, Alex.
> 

I will once ask whether SDO is ok with INFORMATIONAL track.  At meeting
it was said yes.  To which one may reply that we voted in mip6 for _one_
solution.  This is unclear needs clarification.

Alex