On 10/10/2008 12:21 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
Lakshminath and Vidya,
Vijay, Enrico and Stefano have said what I was going to say (e.g. below)
-- as sponsoring AD for this charter I've been following the WG
discussion, working with the rest of the IESG, and talking to people to
confirm that there's better consensus on the list, even if there was
confusion at the BOF. This IETF Last Call is also part of confirming
whether there's now consensus.
My concern can be put in really simple terms. We have some really very
confusing processes and we seem to add to the confusion and not make
I left Dublin thinking, out of the p2pi efforts, TANA will be a WG
(there was strong consensus and agreement on the problem space and what
needs to be done) and ALTO may have another BoF. As of today, there is
a WG proposal on the table for ALTO and in a different area from where
we started; TANA is on the BoF wiki.
Next, my experiences in the past on BoFs that did not have consensus
have been dramatically different from what is happening on ALTO. The
IESG has really even refused to allow another BoF much less directly
started creating a working group. So, it makes me wonder whether the
rules have recently been changed or whether they are selectively applied.
I am also confused by your use of the word consensus; you say that
you've "talked to people" to confirm that there's "better consensus on
the list," but also say that the charter review is also part of the
consensus process. Shouldn't there be a call for consensus?
It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the
This is an interesting opinion. May I translate that to mean that there
is already a solution in the minds of the people who wrote the charter?
Why then would we bother with the proposed requirements effort, writing
down a problem statement and all the rest? Why not put an RFC number on
It also makes me wonder what your opinion on the following from 2418.
" - Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an attempt
to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of input from IETF
participants may be limited?"
What would help with the charter, even now, is for people to
write up proposals for the solution -- ideally in the form of
This seems to be starkly different from the process I know of. Are you
really suggesting that people come up with solutions to help with the
charter? What problem are we solving? What are the requirements?
Based on the proposal that was sent out, we won't have consensus on all
of those until Oct 2009 or later.
Apr 2009: Working Group Last Call for problem statement
Jun 2009: Submit problem statement to IESG as Informational
Aug 2009: Working Group Last Call for requirements document
Oct 2009: Submit requirements document to IESG as Informational
I haven't yet selected chairs for the WG, so as you
can imagine editors and authors aren't yet selected.
It would be most
excellent to see some individual proposals before a committee gets their
hands on them :)
I am sorry Lisa, but I am really confused by your request for proposals
before we even agree on the problem. I am hoping for a clarification.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani
<vkg(_at_)alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com <mailto:vkg(_at_)alcatel-lucent(_dot_)com>> wrote:
And since the BoF, much has changed to narrow the scope of the
charter down to more manageable pieces as well as establish a
channel with IRTF to move certain aspects of the work there
(as the timeline in my previous email indicated.)
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
My perception and my understanding of some of the dissenting
was that some of those need to be worked out before creating a
But I believe that we have done exactly that: the list has been
busy since Dublin on attempts to move the work forward in a manner
that is conducive to all participants.
Ietf mailing list