Subject: Fwd: Re: draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-22.txt

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:45:50 -0800 (PST)

FYI,
 
After receiving news today from the RFC-Editor of complications with the
publication procedures for this document, I have just sent the forwarded
message below in reply. To those who were genuinely looking forward to
successful publication, I am sorry that I will no longer be able to head up
the effort. To those who were genuinely supportive of the authors' best
interests, my sincere thanks.
 
Fred L. Templin
[email-masked]

Fred Templin <[email-masked]> wrote:
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:30:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Templin 
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-22.txt
To: RFC Editor , [email-masked],
[email-masked], [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

IMHO (and speaking only for myself) significant factions in the IETF are clearlydeeply committed to endless gamesmanship with respect to this particulardocument. Up to now my co-authors and I have participated in good faith, butthat faith has been betrayed time and again by bad politics and ill-manneredindividuals. As such (and after many years of strenuous concerted effort aswitnessed by mailing list archives) I no longer have faith that additional energycontributed toward this enterprise could possibly bear fruits. I therefore regretthat I must inform you of my decision to abandon the effort as lead author.To my co-authors, I would like to wish each of you the very best in decidinghow to proceed from here. I will be happy to turn over to you any materialsyou may need to continue the effort should you choose to do so. Please beaware that my former employer (SRI International) is claiming IPR - see:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=193Since I am no
 longer associated with SRI (and since I have no legal expertiseas basis for advising you) I recommend working through the contact informationfound on the IPR statement if you should have any questions.Sincerely,Fred L. [email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:16:07 +0100

Fred, could you be more explicit about the "complications"?

The IPR disclosure in question reads (in its essence):

>    b) _X_   Royalty-Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to
>             All Implementers
>               Check here if this licensing declaration is limited solely
>               to standards-track IETF documents ___

    Brian

Fred Templin wrote:
> IMHO (and speaking only for myself) significant factions in the IETF are clearlydeeply committed to endless gamesmanship with respect to this particulardocument. Up to now my co-authors and I have participated in good faith, butthat faith has been betrayed time and again by bad politics and ill-manneredindividuals. As such (and after many years of strenuous concerted effort aswitnessed by mailing list archives) I no longer have faith that additional energycontributed toward this enterprise could possibly bear fruits. I therefore regretthat I must inform you of my decision to abandon the effort as lead author.To my co-authors, I would like to wish each of you the very best in decidinghow to proceed from here. I will be happy to turn over to you any materialsyou may need to continue the effort should you choose to do so. Please beaware that my former employer (SRI International) is claiming IPR - see:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=193Since 
I !
>  am no

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 13:48:40 +0000

> Fred, could you be more explicit about the "complications"?

I would also be interested to hear about this; I had expected that note
to be below your reply.

Tim

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:31:13 +0200

Hello,

I think what Fred is referring to are the comments that some IESG people
gave to the ISATAP specification. There were basically two comments: One
about the clarity of the security considerations section and one
addressing the clarity of the definition of the term site.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Fred for his support and
contribution to this WG and especially for his work on ISATAP. I hope
the other authors can take the ball on this on this and one of the other
authors would take Fred's position. I am also personally prepared to
help in the last nits - if needed.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 07:50:02 -0800

> addressing the clarity of the definition of the term site.

Jonne,

Could you please clarify what is the exact status of the draft here?
Yesterday, we've heard it was inthe RFC editor queue for Experimental
and that the door was open to, if folks wanted, after experimental 
feedback, clean-up the spec and republish it as PS with AD direct sponsor.

Do the IESG comments you mentionned above are blocking the publication
now as Experiemntal or the potential later re-publication as PS?

	- Alain.

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:58:43 +0200

Alain,

yes, maybe this merits a few words about the status of the document:

1) The document has been submitted as an individual submission to the
RFC Editor. IESG has taken a look at it and some (minor) comments were
raised.
2) RFC Editor has asked the authors to address those comments
3) After the comments are addressed the document will be published by
the RFC Editor.

There are _no_ showstoppers in the way and this will be published. In
addition, whether to publish ISATAP later as a standards track document
is in no conflict with the process here.

I hope this clears the situation.

Cheers,

Jonne.
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:10:45 +0000

> I hope this clears the situation.

I share Brian/Alain's curiosity/concern, and I don't see how "nits" would
cause Fred to adbandon the work (inside the IETF at least).

I guess if Fred does not want to comment, that is his perogative, but it
seems ISATAP is very close to Experimental publication, which is good!

Tim

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:17:53 +0100

The tracker says:

 > 2004-09-23	22	[amyk]
 > State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza

so the IESG is out of the loop.

The RFC Editor queue says:

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> NON-WORKING GROUP INFORMATIONAL/EXPERIMENTAL/BCP (by date received)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

[>20 older entries deleted]

> 2004/06/08-I  draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-22.txt
> ISR           8/23/04
> F. Templin, T. Gleeson, M. Talwar, D. Thaler
> Intra-Site Automatic Tunnel Addressing Protocol (ISATAP)
> Bytes: 28963

Can we see the RFC Editor review comments, please?

    Brian

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 18:22:48 +0200

Hi,

I hope the authors could share the comments with the WG.

Cheers,

Jonne.
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:44:17 -0800 (PST)

I will be leaving my home in ~15min and will be away from e-mail
access the rest of the day. If anyone wants to see the RFC Editor's
review comments, perhaps contact the RFC Editor. Near as I can tell,
it's not the authors' business to circulate their private correspondences.
 
Fred
[email-masked]

"Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]> wrote:
Hi,

Cheers,

Jonne.
-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 09:20:30 -0800

Fred,

I certainly understand your frustration, but as you complained publicly,
I would have thought you would have disclosed the object of
the contention so others could help fix it.

	- Alain.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:00:05 +0100

Fred is correct that one shouldn't circulate private mail
without permission.

    Brian