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.
-----Original Message-----
From: p2pi-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:p2pi-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Lakshminath Dondeti
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:10 AM
To: Lisa Dusseault
Cc: p2pi(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IESG IESG; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic
Optimization (alto)
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.
Hi Lisa,
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 things simpler.
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
solution.
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
the solution?
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
Internet-Drafts.
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.
thanks,
Lakshminath
Lisa
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
opinions
was that some of those need to be worked out before
creating a
working group.
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.
_______________________________________________
p2pi mailing list
p2pi(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi