Subject: Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:06:36 +0100

Hi Pekka, all,

I agree with this decision, but I'm not sure if is fair enough.

Let me explain. In general I feel that there is too much secret discussions
among the ADs and the co-chairs. I never understood why this talks doesn't
happen within the WG mail exploder, to get other inputs, ideas, or whatever
from the WG. Even if you only get a couple of them, they might be useful.

So, I absolutely disagree with the way the decisions are being taken. This
is not consensus, is probably something closer to a semi-dictatorial
process, and don't take me wrong, you know that I don't have anything
personally against anyone, ADs and co-chairs included, but I prefer much
more being honest, open and clear. It seems to me that we somehow the WG is
getting driven to a very limited set of options.

More concretely, it's absolutely unacceptable in my opinion (even if I'm one
of the co-authors), that the 3GPP-zerocong is being prioritized while other
work, which has been around for longer time, is not treated the same way.

Last but not least, as a concrete example of this, I don't understand how we
can have pieces needed for those I-Ds which are not even considered as WG
items, like the tun-auto-disc and the solution document. If there is any
problem with those documents, please, speak up, otherwise the WG should be
asked for accepting them as WG items NOW.

Hopefully others in the WG mind something all this and have also an opinion.
Otherwise, is probably better that we stop the WG itself.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: [email-masked]
> Fecha: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:51:23 +0300 (EEST)
> Para: [email-masked]
> Asunto: WG last call on tunneling scenarios
> 
> (co-chair hats on)
> 
> Hello,
> 
> In the interest of moving forward from the tunneling requirements, we
> have discussed the situation with ADs, and will be proposing some
> actions.
> 
> One of these is getting a reasonable consensus on the requirements for
> zero-config and registered assisted tunneling.  In order to be able to
> discuss whether existing solutions fit the requirements, how they need
> to be modified, or which kind of new solutions should be specified,
> we'll have to get the requirements to a closure.
> 
> But finishing the requirements will have to happen fast: in the event that
> there are issues for which there is no consensus, it'll be better to just
> document both sides of the argument fairly, and move on and evaluate the
> tradeoffs when selecting or specifying the solution(s).
> 
> In order to achive this, we propose adopting the following as WG items:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00
> .txt
> http://www.v6ops.euro6ix.net/ietf/draft-suryanarayanan-v6ops-zeroconf-reqs-01.
> txt
> 
> Please speak up if you object to this.
> 
> In addition, we are issuing WG last call (for Informational) for:
> 
> draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00.txt
> draft-suryanarayanan-v6ops-zeroconf-reqs-01.txt
> draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-01.txt
> 
> Please send the comments on the list, but specify clearly which document
> you're 
> commenting on.  Now is the last chance to speak up!
> 
> The WG last call expires on Monday, 8th November (the IETF week).
> 
> Pekka & Jonne
> co-chairs
> 
> 

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:31:42 +0200 (EET)

As your reply seems to have been more about the overall process, 
rather than these particular documents themselves, I've renamed the 
thread.

Let's try to keep these issues separate; if you have specific comments 
about the drafts themselves, those would obviously also be appreciated 
(under the original thread).

In a slightly different order,

> getting driven to a very limited set of options.
[...]
> asked for accepting them as WG items NOW.

Just to be clear, could you articulate clearly what you believe are 
the concrete problems and/or what you believe would be the fixes to 
these problems?  Either on or off-list as you feel appropriate.

My interpretation of what you wrote seems to be:

  1. you'd wish to have more dialogue on the list on the way WG is 
managed

  2. as a particular point of 1), you'd wish to have more documents 
(e.g., draft-palet-tun-auto-disc, draft-palet-solution-tun-auto-disc) 
be called out whether they could be WG documents.

As for 1), yes, that's the goal, as far as it seems reasonable.  And 
one can always ask, and suggest improvements... And as for 2), that 
has been a priorization choice which was discussed at IETF60.  The 
reasons may not have been made sufficiently clear, but at least it was 
offered for public debate :)

More discussion is good, but I'd also like for us all to keep in mind 
that at least I personally would rather be concentrating on technical 
work rather than having lengthy debates on what should or should not 
be done in the WG, or in what order and in what manner.  Granted, 
those discussions are likely necessary now and then, but hopefully we 
should concentrate more on 'doing' rather than 'talking about doing' 
:).

> work, which has been around for longer time, is not treated the same way.

I'm not sure if it's clear what you refer to here.  3GPP isn't treated 
specially AFAIK, in the sense that its WG adoption etc. is done at the 
same time as for the rest.

Maybe you're referrring to the fact that the 3GPP requirements are 
documented in a separate document, not as part of the generic 
requirements document?  The reason is mostly historical, as you know, 
but if people in the WG think that these should not be in the separate 
documents, now is the right time to speak up!

(Follow-ups to this should probably go back in the original thread!)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:48:34 +0100

Hi Pekka, all,

Thanks for your reply.

Your interpretation about my email seems to me correct, see below in-line.

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 20:31:42 +0200 (EET)
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
> CC: [email-masked]
> Asunto: WG process etc. [Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios]
> 

Yes, that should be a must ! I never understood those "secret" conversations
among the ADs and the co-chairs that lead to decisions, which in my opinion
belong to the community, the WG.

> be called out whether they could be WG documents.

Yes, I will say those documents are in a very good shape, and have the same
right to be considered WG items as many others.

> one can always ask, and suggest improvements... And as for 2), that

Is difficult to ask and suggest improvements when the previous conversations
are kept secret. Is difficult to provide comments without a concrete and
very clear rationale behind the decisions. The openness should come fist
from your side ;-)

> offered for public debate :)

That's why I'm asking for ;-). The discussion in IETF60 was again after some
close and "secret" talks, and this is a big part of the issue and problem.

If I look into the chapter, which is the only "legally valid framework" for
our work and for the decisions, I see a lot of operational works that are
being excluded from becoming WG items (even just ask the WG for it), which
is very unfair, and "legally against our own chapter". The decisions are
being taken in an unbalanced way, in my opinion.

> should concentrate more on 'doing' rather than 'talking about doing'

Agree, but in general I see the WG (as a whole) not very proactive, and I'm
wondering if some of us are becoming so upset in the way this is being
driven, that we are just giving up.

Quick though (which could be a natural human reaction): Why I need to put
more effort on this WG if work that are clearly within the chapter are not
being considered, despite the lot of hours behind that work ?

> same time as for the rest.

I recall Erik already commented about this ... I think even there was some
official request from 3GPP. I'm not opposing to that, but wondering if this
is the correct way we should act on those request, and what are the
consequences about that in the future towards other similar requests from
other groups.

On the other way around, I perfectly understand that industry is leading and
some non-standards are becoming de facto standards, which is not good.
That's why we need to work faster and in parallel instead of in serial and
slow mode. If the WG is not commenting or providing inputs, but there are no
objections either, the work should be standardized.

> documents, now is the right time to speak up!

No, it was just an example. Nothing against this specific document, but is a
good example of the way the WG, and in general IETF is doing. How is
possible we have a document for a 3GPP-zeroconfiguration that we do during
the past meeting, and has been prioritized in such way, and other works
aren't treated the same way ?

Also, if there was a 3GPP request (may be I'm wrong about this), why this
has not been published openly in the IETF exploders, or web page or whatever
?

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 21:50:50 -0800

Jordi,

> from the WG. Even if you only get a couple of them, they might be useful.

This is from far the truth and you know that. The things that we
discuss privately are mostly about procedural issues and follow up on
documents that are in IESG review.

The only topic outside this category that we recently talked about is
the future of the working group. I already mentioned at last IETF
meeting that this a topic is soon going to be important for the simple
reason that most work items are now close to completion. Normally, in
the life of an IETF working group, that is a good time to start
thinking about what is next. Note that the discussions that we had
were *not* to make decisions, they were intended to explore the
various options that exist.

In order to discuss this further in all openness we asked the chairs
to allocate some time on the agenda to talk about this:

---
Discussion of the way forward - 15 mins, Chairs/ADs
 - GOAL: discuss and get consensus on how to proceed from here
---

(and yes, I think we could possibly use a bit more than 15 minutes :-))

> more being honest, open and clear. 

This paragraph is very close to accusing the ADs and the co-chairs of
dishonesty. I hope you tried to say something different :-). 
 
David Kessens
---

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:50:33 +0100

Hi David,

Well, is how I feel it. Is long to explain here, and probably not worth to
do it and continue this thread (unless you ask for it explicitly, then no
problem from my side), but I will be happy to talk to you and the chairs
during the meeting, if you have some time.

Anyway, as you said, you talked about the future of the WG, which clearly is
relevant for the WG itself, right ?

In my opinion, it will be much more useful, instead of just talking about it
during the meeting (and more fair because some people could not attend), to
open this thread NOW in the mail exploder, with any suggestions that you,
the chairs, whoever can have.

At this way, the WG can start thinking on it, providing inputs (hopefully),
and have a more clear and open discussion in the meeting, and then I guess a
final decision immediately after in the mailing list.

Also, reading one of the recent emails from Pekka, it seems to me that the
decision about asking the WG to get some documents as WG items (and not
others), has been taken, instead about asking the WG about all. I don't
agree with that procedure, while clearly it can be done more openly and the
WG can have a more fair decision (not a semi-driven one). But again, is my
point of view, which may be wrong, or different from others in the WG.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 21:50:50 -0800
> Asunto: Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios
> 
> 
> Jordi,
>

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:25:21 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Fair enough.  Please send the objections (if any) on document 
> adoption by the end of Tuesday 2nd November at the latest.
>
> Comments/review on the drafts themselves are still welcome!

(hat on)

As there were no specific objections to adopting these documents, 
there appears to be rough consensus on taking these as WG items.

Let's continue the WG last call as called out earlier.

*** We really need the reviews, and that means *YOU* too! :) ***

(hat off)

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 20:51:27 +0100

Ok. So then we should be fair enough also with the rest of the documents and
ask the same question, and see if there is any objection.

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:25:21 +0200 (EET)
> Para: [email-masked]

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:22:19 +0200 (EET)

For those who already deleted the email with the pointers, here they 
are again:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00.txt
http://www.v6ops.euro6ix.net/ietf/draft-suryanarayanan-v6ops-zeroconf-reqs-01.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirements-01.txt

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
>> Fair enough.  Please send the objections (if any) on document adoption by 
>> the end of Tuesday 2nd November at the latest.
>> 
> As there were no specific objections to adopting these documents, there 
> appears to be rough consensus on taking these as WG items.
>