Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Procedure

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:07:58 +0200

> From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]> To: Alexandru Petrescu
> <[email-masked]> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:40:26 -0700 
> Subject: Re: Procedure Hi Alex,
> 
> On 2009/10/21, at 14:32, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> 
>> Ryuji,
>> 
>> This is the second time things go strange in this WG.  The first
>> time was at the DT formation time.
>> 
> 
> 
> what was the problem of the DT formation time?

DT announcement after DT announcement.  I will not remind you now but I
talked about it at the time on the jabber and on the mailing list.

> After revising the WG charter, we formed a DT to identify the clear
> WG item.

Now it looks as if you better had gone the way of AD sponsoring, and not 
forming a DT working for a WG about which there seems to be little care 
- but much secrecy.  Sorry to say so but that's my impression.

You had a public mailing list on the DT - that was ok.  But there's no 
discussion on it about this decision of submitting the DT draft into WG 
item.

>> With respect to this document, it is not up to me to speak, but it
>> may be the case that another draft may talk same title as this
>> draft.
>> 
> 
> 
> DT is not officially formed to produce an individual document. We
> clearly spent so much time to improve this document.

How about the new autoconf document I just saw announced and to which I 
agree much more?  (about link-local addresses: it starts saying they are 
a MUST) - I agree to that stance much more than the DT document.

In that sense I agree much more with that new draft than with the DT
draft.

Please fix this - it's not my problem (don't tell me I already agreed 
with the DT text on link-locals) - this is a WG caring problem.

Alex

> ryuji

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:25:21 -0700

Hi Alex,

On 2009/10/21, at 15:07, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

>> <[email-masked]> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:40:26  
>> -0700 Subject: Re: Procedure Hi Alex,

announcement after formation? What was the problem here?
That was what Chairs and ADs have agreed.

> Now it looks as if you better had gone the way of AD sponsoring, and  
> not forming a DT working for a WG about which there seems to be  
> little care - but much secrecy.  Sorry to say so but that's my  
> impression.
>
> You had a public mailing list on the DT - that was ok.  But there's  
> no discussion on it about this decision of submitting the DT draft  
> into WG item.
>
> How about the new autoconf document I just saw announced and to  
> which I agree much more?  (about link-local addresses: it starts  
> saying they are a MUST) - I agree to that stance much more than the  
> DT document.

AFAIK, the document conflicts with what we have agreed so far in WG,  
specially LL address stuff.

> In that sense I agree much more with that new draft than with the DT

What was the previous consensus call for then?

> Please fix this - it's not my problem (don't tell me I already  
> agreed with the DT text on link-locals) - this is a WG caring problem.

How do you want us to fix it? sending consensus call to adapt draft- 
bacelli?

regards,
ryuji

>
> Alex
>
>> ryuji
>
> _______________________________________________
> Autoconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:45:38 -0700

Hello Alex,

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> not forming a DT working for a WG about which there seems to be little 
> care - but much secrecy.  Sorry to say so but that's my impression.
>
> discussion on it about this decision of submitting the DT draft into 
> WG item.

I don't remember the discussion about making the DT
draft into a WG item, and I was on the design team.

Nevertheless, I do not feel threatened by any
trend towards secrecy.  It's a lot more reasonable
to just imagine that the WG chairs were trying to
act in the best interest of the working group after
months and months of discussion.

Discussion != secrecy.

But anyway I agree it would have been better to
gauge consensus before making the DT draft into
a working-group document.  Somehow, I thought
that had been done already, but I wasn't paying
attention so closely.

>
> How about the new autoconf document I just saw announced and to which 
> I agree much more?  (about link-local addresses: it starts saying they 
> are a MUST) - I agree to that stance much more than the DT document.

You never responded to my explanation about
why your proposed solution to the 4-node problem
would almost certainly fail.   So as far as I can tell
this desire for mandating Link-Local is religion and
not any sort of engineering.

A stance is an opinion, not necessarily bolstered
by facts or the possibility of making progress.

> with the DT text on link-locals) - this is a WG caring problem. 

Here I really disagree.  Why do you say
there is a problem with "WG caring"?  I am
not sure what that means, but it sounds bad.
In my opinion, with my interactions on the list
and discussions on the design team, the WG
chairs have shown me that they do care for the
health of the working group.

Do you claim otherwise?

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:19:46 +0200

Hi Alex,

I agree with Charlie. While I also do not remember a discussion about
whether to make the draft a working group draft, I do think it is a good
idea. I also understand the chair's decision to publish the draft as WG
draft before the deadline of draft submission last Monday. This working
group is far behind schedule and we really need to progress, or otherwise
the WG will die. I don't think it will help us now to start a long political
discussion about whether the procedures of the chairs were appropriate or
not.
That said, I think that for future decisions, the chairs might consider a
consensus call on the mailing list before submitting a new WG draft before
the submission deadline.

Best regards,
Ulrich

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Charles E. Perkins <
[email-masked]> wrote:

>> forming a DT working for a WG about which there seems to be little care -
>> but much secrecy.  Sorry to say so but that's my impression.
>>
>> agree much more?  (about link-local addresses: it starts saying they are a
>> MUST) - I agree to that stance much more than the DT document.
>>
>
>> Please fix this - it's not my problem (don't tell me I already agreed with
>> the DT text on link-locals) - this is a WG caring problem.
>>
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:37:48 +0200

> specially LL address stuff.

Ryuji, I don't trust this.

This is all about confidence.  One can't build confidence this way.

Following the list of past events, I can expect there will be no LC on 
the WG item document either, ship straight to IESG.  And this is what AD 
sponsoring is about, you don't need a WG at all.

And hence frustration grows and distrust builds up.

> What was the previous consensus call for then?

That is right, the consensus call was for the LL addresses stuff.

But why no consensus call on adoption of the DT document?

> How do you want us to fix it? sending consensus call to adapt 
> draft-bacelli?

Isn't it too late for that?  How do "adopt" a document already submitted 
as WG item?

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:47:35 +0200

Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
>> Now it looks as if you better had gone the way of AD sponsoring, 
>> and not forming a DT working for a WG about which there seems to be
> I don't remember the discussion about making the DT draft into a WG 
> item, and I was on the design team.
> 
> Nevertheless, I do not feel threatened by any trend towards secrecy. 
> It's a lot more reasonable to just imagine that the WG chairs were 
> trying to act in the best interest of the working group after months 
> and months of discussion.

This is a choice you made.

Months and months of discussion about LL stuff - yes, tiring.  At the
end, I decided myself I could live with LLs as the DT document says they
are, and proceed.

At the same time, this new document was submitted, and has LL text in
which is much more appropriate to my thoughts.

Were the Chairs to raise a question today: "which LL text you prefer?
DT draft's LL text?  Or new-draft LL's text" I'd surely vote for the second.

> Discussion != secrecy.

Right.

> But anyway I agree it would have been better to gauge consensus 
> before making the DT draft into a working-group document.  Somehow, I
>  thought that had been done already, but I wasn't paying attention so
>  closely.

Ok.

> You never responded to my explanation about why your proposed 
> solution to the 4-node problem would almost certainly fail.   So as 
> far as I can tell this desire for mandating Link-Local is religion 
> and not any sort of engineering.

Hey, Charles, you never responded to my mail which was a response to 
yours.  If you want me, I can respond to yours.  But why should I spent 
the effort when I see that the WG is not even consulted at WG item adoption.

> A stance is an opinion, not necessarily bolstered by facts or the 
> possibility of making progress.
> 
>> 
>> 
> Here I really disagree.  Why do you say there is a problem with "WG 
> caring"?  I am not sure what that means, but it sounds bad.

IT sounds bad, because I feel like the Chairs do not care of the WG
opinion.  This is as explicit as it sounds.

> In my opinion, with my interactions on the list and discussions on
> the design team, the WG chairs have shown me that they do care for
> the health of the working group.
> 
> Do you claim otherwise?

Charles, yes - I claim otherwise.  I claim that submitting a WG item 
without consulting the WG is sign of not caring ("to care") of the WG 
opinion.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:09:31 +0200

Hi Ulrich,

Ulrich Herberg a écrit :
> group is far behind schedule and we really need to progress, or 
> otherwise the WG will die. I don't think it will help us now to start a 
> long political discussion about whether the procedures of the chairs 
> were appropriate or not.

This is not about politics.

This is about procedure.  Procedure is what sticks groups together 
geared towards one goal, procedure is what builds confidence among 
people rarely meeting and with otherwise very different interests.

Without procedure there would be no WG, no DT, no IETF.

Of course, blindly following procedures is not necessarily productive - 
it's good to challenge the establishment.

And right now the establishment is the variable-geometry DT which has 
the most voices and choices in this WG.

> That said, I think that for future decisions, the chairs might consider 
> a consensus call on the mailing list before submitting a new WG draft 
> before the submission deadline.

That sounds as a good idea for future decisions, I agree with you.

For this document, an approach could be to ship this document to IESG as 
AD sponsored.

Alex

> 
> Best regards,
> Ulrich
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Charles E. Perkins 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> 
> wrote:
> 
>     Hello Alex,
> 
> 
>         and not forming a DT working for a WG about which there seems to
>         be little care - but much secrecy.  Sorry to say so but that's
>         my impression.
> 
>         You had a public mailing list on the DT - that was ok.  But
>         there's no discussion on it about this decision of submitting
>         the DT draft into WG item.
> 
> 
>         saying they are a MUST) - I agree to that stance much more than
>         the DT document.
> 
> 
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Emmanuel Baccelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:35:01 +0200

Alex,see below.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Alexandru Petrescu <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> This is about procedure.  Procedure is what sticks groups together geared
> towards one goal, procedure is what builds confidence among people rarely
> meeting and with otherwise very different interests.
>
> And right now the establishment is the variable-geometry DT which has the
> most voices and choices in this WG.
>
> For this document, an approach could be to ship this document to IESG as AD
> sponsored.
>
> Alex
>
>
Or we could continue what we have been doing for several months: incremental
improvement of the draft with the feedback from the working group, and then
send to the IESG.

Thus, from my point of view, your comments are simply unfair. I, as author
of draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-00, feel like we have been working
together in this WG, for a long time, to get to this document which
describes the rough consensus on the question. Do check the archive of the
Autoconf mailing list if you need to.

So I would appreciate if debatable and purely procedural considerations were
not wrongly mixed with the technical work that has indeed taken place until
now. Let's remain practical here, if we are to get anywhere!

Emmanuel

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:30:50 -0700

Hello Alex,

In my inbox, I do not have any email from you after my
last response, sent at 9/23/2009 11:07 AM to [autoconf]
mailing list.  I will send you my last email without copying
the list to avoid boring people to death by rehashing old
arguments (oops, sorry, I guess they're already being
bored to death this week).

Regards,
Charlie P.

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> yours.  If you want me, I can respond to yours.  But why should I 
> spent the effort when I see that the WG is not even consulted at WG 
> item adoption.
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:47:21 +0200

> bored to death this week).

Charles,

Thank you, got the message.  I wanted to explain you that I didn't reply 
to your message earlier this year because I felt like you don;t listen 
to what I said.

Rehashing old arguments, bored to death this week, etc. - are these 
indicators of weaknesses such as sudden submission without WG approval?

Bored people don't proceed this way.

In that message exchange there are number of issues that need 
clarification.  The issue tracker may be recommendable.

-how many interfaces does a node have?
-how to subnet 1000 nodes?
-which link layer do you consider?
-what are the movemement models and coverage areas considered?

These are fundamental things without which no engineer can do anything 
other than speculating and dancing on the top of pines, if I can say so.

(well ok, I am talking for myself).

Alex

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:53:31 -0700

Illegal Procedure - 5 yard penalty - now 4th and 6
instead of 4th and 1 - time to punt.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:07:02 +0200

> instead of 4th and 1 - time to punt.

Sounds as a sport procedure or so...

Alex

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:23:33 -0700

Hi Alex,

> Ryuji, I don't trust this.

It's up to you.

> This is all about confidence.  One can't build confidence this way.

this is not on purpose. If you feel so, we sorry for that.

> Following the list of past events, I can expect there will be no LC on the
> WG item document either, ship straight to IESG.  And this is what AD

how come. We need WGLC and IETF-LC which are official procedure, we
cannot ignore them.
Don't argue with your imagination.

> That is right, the consensus call was for the LL addresses stuff.

consensus call was also for the DT document.

> But why no consensus call on adoption of the DT document?

timing issue.

> Isn't it too late for that?  How do "adopt" a document already submitted as
> WG item?

We can always withdraw a WG document. That's we have a right to do if
that is WG consensus.

ryuji

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:48:56 +0200

There is no requirement to run an explicit consensus call, if the chairs 
can determine through discussion or other means that there's widespread 
support for adoption. Of course, sometimes doing things in the formal 
way helps you if someone disagrees with the decision, as happened here. 
I see that Thomas and Ryuji are now doing a formal call -- that's fine.

In any case, please, lets not run processes for the sake of the process 
itself. Lets stop discussing the process and get back to the reason why 
we are doing this work to begin with. I have not read all mail on the 
mailing list, but there seemed to be at least a fair amount of support 
for the current document. Naturally with some people in opposition, and 
with some alternative suggestions as well. From my point of view, the 
bottom line is: does someone believe that adoption is unreasonable, 
given the opinions in the group and the state of the document? If not, 
lets move on to some more useful discussions. If yes, please speak up now!

Jari

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:50:49 +0100

> lets move on to some more useful discussions. If yes, please speak up now!

YEs I believe it is unreasonable to adopt that single document when a 
competitor document exists and which is technically more inline with 
what I think.

Alex

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:57:38 +0200

Alex,

> competitor document exists and which is technically more inline with 

I am aware that you wanted to see the other document adopted instead. 
But note that I said "given the opinions in the group" and not any 
individual's opinion. We all know that there is no unanimous agreement 
about this, but I was curious if someone thought that the chairs had 
somehow missed that a large part of the group disagreed with the idea of 
adopting the DT document.

Jari