Subject: RE: [pilc] RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:25:14 -0500

Dear All,

Speaking only for myself, I've found the discussion on this topic to be helpful and appropriate for the PILC community, with its heavy emphasis on wireless networks. I think it's helpful for the TRIGGERS community, too. Here's why.

I am hearing pushback on a specific proposed charter, and that's not a bad thing. The PILC charter proposal got a fair amount of pushback, several years ago, because what Gab Montenegro and I were asking for was a "TCP over FOO" working group ("Son of TCPSAT"), and the pushback steered us toward a more general view of the problem, and got people into the room who didn't care two hoots about TCP over wireless but did care about TCP. We would not have produced the LINK draft without this pushback.

I'm not sure that taking the TRIGGERS discussion somewhere else would change it significantly, and am even less sure that doing so would improve the discussion.

The most helpful request *I* can make is to ask all interested participants in this thread to subscribe to the PILC list, so we can really trim down the recipients lists and reduce the number of duplicate copies that we get when we participate actively in the discussion.

Thank you,

Spencer Dawkins, speaking only for myself

_______________________________________________
pilc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pilc
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/pilc-charter.html
http://pilc.grc.nasa.gov/

---

From: Dan Grossman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:16:08 -0400

> The most helpful request *I* can make is to ask all interested participants in this thread to subscribe to the PILC list, so we can really trim down the recipients lists and reduce the number of du…

The other request that I can make is that we try to keep this discussion civil.   As in no ad hominem attacks on the motivations or technical competence of others with differing views.

This said, it appears that a consensus could be reached on this list that this is a useful (or at least acceptable) work item, as long as the intended result is to be informational rather than standards track (whether the IESG agrees is, of course, another question, although one hopes that a degree of community support would influence their decisions).   My further suggestion along these lines is to make these triggers abstract (not define a concrete syntax for them).  This would obviate the
possibility of standards track RFCs.  If the objective is to provide a more useful framework for discussing Layer 2/IP layer/end-to-end protocol interactions, syntactic bindings would only clutter up the effort and draft(s).  If syntactic bindings were needed, they could be produced later, and possibly elsewhere.

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:23:22 -0700

Agreed.

                jak

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Grossman" <[email-masked]>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>; "Vernon Schryver"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
"Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]>; "Einar Vollset"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Mike Sasuta"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Kamesh Medepalli"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: [pilc] RE: AD request / L2 Triggers Chapter Statement

>
>
> Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm not sure that taking the TRIGGERS discussion somewhere else
would change it significantly, and am even less sure that doing so would
improve the discussion.
> >
> > The most helpful request *I* can make is to ask all interested
participants in this thread to subscribe to the PILC list, so we can
really trim down the recipients lists and reduce the number of duplicate
copies that we get when we participate actively in the discussion.
> >
> >
>
> The other request that I can make is that we try to keep this
discussion civil.   As in no ad hominem attacks on the motivations or
technical competence of others with differing views.
>
> This said, it appears that a consensus could be reached on this list
that this is a useful (or at least acceptable) work item, as long as the
intended result is to be informational rather than standards track
(whether the IESG agrees is, of course, another question, although one
hopes that a degree of community support would influence their
decisions).   My further suggestion along these lines is to make these
triggers abstract (not define a concrete syntax for them).  This would
obviate the
> possibility of standards track RFCs.  If the objective is to provide a
more useful framework for discussing Layer 2/IP layer/end-to-end
protocol interactions, syntactic bindings would only clutter up the
effort and draft(s).  If syntactic bindings were needed, they could be
produced later, and possibly elsewhere.