Subject: RE: WG process etc. [Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios]

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:28:18 -0500

Jordi,

>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.

This is your confusion and the IETF changed I think about 18 months ago
or when we killed A6.  Specs cannot go forward from silence and that is
now true in all IETF WGs I know of in the IETF.  I first ran into this
in DHCPv6 working with Ralph as Chair many years ago.  I did not like it
at first and did not get it.  Then we were able to get the engineers to
comment on DHCPv6 and made the spec 10 times as strong and solid
consensus.  So now I am a firm believer in silence is no good as metric
to move a spec forward.  Zero conf work had lots of mail thread
discussions and appears to be valid to accept as work item within the
IETF.  Bottom line is the Chairs have not broken any rule but enforcing
the rule.  Also sometimes the WG is just maxed.  For example we did not
get input as fast as we needed it for Enterprise Analysis but then we go
so much I am still parsing it as Ent Analysis editor.  I don't think
there is any scientific method to this at all the longer I am around.  

There is also no secret discussions that is just absurd.  Is it possible
the ADs and Chairs individually don't support specific work, sure, but
that's another matter and their right, and fair too.  The objective is
to get the WG excited technically about specific work, and that makes
the Chairs and ADs get a buzz.

Reqarding industry doing defacto standards.  Yes this is happening now
with IPv6 Transition and several mechanisms are being deployed now that
are way ahead of the IETF.  That will correct itself between the market
and the IETF.  At times the market leads, but usually the IETF is in
synch with the curve, but not on time. But, v6ops is doing everything it
can to meet time-to-market and I for one applaud all of us here for that
we are getting real work done and on time.  As you know I am very pro
defacto standards and solutions when the IETF don't get it and a large
number of implementers do. We just move forward in industry and keep
sending data to this body called the IETF.  The IPv6 Forum is exactly
from the IETF moving to slow and in 1999 implementors took matters into
their own hands and now the IPv6 Forum is a world wide deployment body
that clearly can support defacto standards and with task forces that are
part of the IPv6 Forum across the planet.  That is what happens when any
standards body is to slow and does not meet the needs of the market.

I read every mail on this list and a few others and you have not been
treated unfairly at all, but your work has not reached consenus on this
list that I can see as working group items.  That does not mean it is
not good work but maybe not work in the IETF, as a question?  Ask your
self is it a protocol, operational tool that can be standard without
forcing implementation of protocols through configuration, a best
current practice, etc.?  And most important "what problem does your work
solve"?  

What I have found with my work in the IETF when it stalls it is usually
there was no consensus on the problem it solves or there needs to first
be discussion of everyones assumptions.  For example, I believe many
customers will simply shut off IPv4 on a dual IPv4/IPv6 subnetwork and
cascade that policy expediently as a transition strategy across all
their other subnetworks until the entire customers Intranet or Internet
is IPv6 dominant with only pockets of legacy IPv4 for transition.
Educating all why and how is what I am doing now and once they see that
then solving the problem can move forward.  I also think most customers
now will go get IPv6 prefixes and 6to4 is highly questionable as widely
used for the transition and that is a new change in the market some of
us have learned directly.  These are just examples of others who have
the same problem and I don't think it is because of secret meetings in
the IETF.

I don't think the chairs or ADs warrant your mail and its unfair as one
working group members input these chairs work their ass off and do what
they can to keep things moving.  Now if they don't listen or ignore
consensus I will be the first to throw tomatoes, but I don't see that in
this specific case.

P.S. Pekka - I still do not agree with you about 70% of the time :--)

Regards,
/jim

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:36:28 +0200

Ladies, and Gentlemen of the v6ops WG,

I understand that the slow process of our little WG causes some
frustration among the participants of the WG. 

Like you all know, we have had this scenarios/analysis project going on
for a long time. To facilitate the quickest possible ending of that
project we decided in the IETF#60 meeting to concentrate on finishing
just those tasks. This has practically meant that much of the work has
concentrated on the remaining analysis document, and the now three
requirements documents. 

Basically the plan was the following:

1) Finish the remaining analysis documents
2) Stabilize the requirements documents
3) Map the requirements to solutions
4) Refocus v6ops / start possibly needed work in the Internet Area

I think we are somewhere between steps 2 and 3, right?

I understand that people are anxious to start working on the actual
protocols - and believe me - I hope we could have started on the
technical work much earlier! However, sadly we just haven't gotten to
that point.

It is obvious that we have not communicated enough where are we going
and to some of you this has been an indication of us doing things behind
your backs. We'll try to behave better in the future. However, you
shouldn't worry at least Pekka and I plotting behind your backs - we
agree on so few things, it wouldn't be even possible! ;)

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

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

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:04:53 +0100

Hi Jim,

See below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: [email-masked]
> Fecha: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:28:18 -0500
> Para: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: RE: WG process etc. [Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios]
> 
> Jordi,
> 

This happened in this WG already, and is going to happen again with the last
calls send a couple of days ago.

In an ideal world, I will agree, that no WG comments is not good, but world
is not ideal, and even if a document is bad (or good), may be there are no
inputs. This is happening.

> IETF.  Bottom line is the Chairs have not broken any rule but enforcing

Other documents also got lots of mail threads, and they aren't WG items.

And anyway, is difficult to measure if a document is or not a valid WG item
depending on the number of emails or threads, because it can be a simple
analysis which is clear, and not necessarily have comments. In our case, the
only comments that we got were from Brian mainly, regarding the missing SLP
analysis, which has been already done.

> there is any scientific method to this at all the longer I am around.

My metric to see if a document is a valid WG item is the WG charter.
Otherwise, why we need the charter at all ?
And if the charter is not clear, then we should change it, but not start
discussing if this or that document is or not within the charter. You don't
think so ?

> the Chairs and ADs get a buzz.

Yes, you say it "individually" but that's not with their respective hats ...

Again the point is the charter is there for something.

> list that I can see as working group items.  That does not mean it is

Some of our works had been requested by the chairs, for example
tun-auto-disc, and we decided to take over it, because actually we already
were working on that direction.

Is not fair then that this should be WG item (specially because is an
analysis of an operational issue, which is part of the charter) ? Otherwise
is not fair that chairs ask for it ;-)

> current practice, etc.?  And most important "what problem does your work

All the answers to those questions bring me to the same conclusion ... It
should be a WG item, unless there is objection in the WG.

> is IPv6 dominant with only pockets of legacy IPv4 for transition.

Fully agree, you know, specially with only IPv6 ;-)

> P.S. Pekka - I still do not agree with you about 70% of the time :--)

**********************************
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: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 02:08:07 +0100

Hi Jonne,

Well, as you know, I think this serial-mode has been wrong all the time. At
least a "pure-serial" mode.

I don't recall the WG being asked for doing this or not, just forced to.

Is that an open process ?

:-(

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:36:28 +0200
> Para: "ext Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
> CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]

---

From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:35:43 +0200

Jordi,

I see that you are upset. I'm sorry if you feel that there has not been
enough discussion on the topic. 

However, we have been working in the process where we have to finish the
scenarios/analysis to understand what we are supposed to do. This has
been in place from the start of v6ops. Maybe there has not been enough
discussion on this process, but I feel the discussion now is a bit late.
We are practically finished! 

I hope we can discuss the next steps now in full extent in the meeting
to make sure that nobody's voice goes unheard.

Cheers,

Jonne.

-- 
Jonne Soininen
Nokia

Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:30:17 +0100

Hi Jonne,

I'm not upset about this specific issue, even if it seems so. I was upset
long time ago on this ;-) We need to look in a positive way. What was done
wrong, should be recognized, and not do the same error twice !

I know it was a decision (not the WG decision, and that's the problem !),
and is to late to change it, but NOW, we have an opportunity to do better
the next steps, at least with the WG agreement.

So please, start the discussion now in the list, provide inputs about what
are your proposing, different alternatives, etc.

The meeting is never enough (even with time restrictions, people not there
which may contribute, etc.), specially if the inputs aren't there up-front.

I think that should be a fair way to continue. Do you agree ?

Regards,
Jordi

> Fecha: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:35:43 +0200
> Para: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]
> Asunto: Re: WG process etc. [Re: WG last call on tunneling scenarios]
> 
> Jordi,
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> Jonne Soininen
> Nokia
> 
> Tel: +358 40 527 46 34

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:27:25 +0100

Jordi,

 > I know it was a decision (not the WG decision, and that's the problem !),

I don't think that's the problem. Consider the job that the community
asks the ADs (i.e. the Steering Group) to do: steer the IETF. That's why
it's the IESG that approves WG charters. You can say that the IESG
steered incorrectly, but you can't say that they aren't allowed to
steer.

That is why WG charters are sent out for review - and people generally
don't comment on them, as far as I can see. When I was in the IAB,
I always felt that reviewing (IAB) and approving (IESG) charters was
the most important single activity of those committees.

In this case I believe the initial steering was correct but the
velocity was far too slow - thus we are all frustrated.

    Brian

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:57:25 +0100

Hi Brian,

In than sense is my fault also, because I didn't reviewed the charter,
unfortunately, but I'd some disagreement in several occasions when talking
with the chairs about if this or that work falls within the charter, and
instead of (if needed) clarifying the charter, just nothing happened.

Now I asked for starting a discussion about what are the options, in order
to ask the WG inputs before the meeting, and have a more profitable meeting.

Hopefully we see something about this, may be today ?

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
> Organización: IBM
> Fecha: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:27:25 +0100