Subject: Re: [Autoconf] IP Addressing Model for Ad Hoc Networks

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:22:09 +0200

Hi Emmanuel,

Well - thank you for this new draft.

However - shouldn't we agree in the WG before the document becomes a
WG item (draft-ietf-autoconf)?

It is strange to see the document submitted as WG item all of a
sudden.  What is going on?

Alex

E. Baccelli wrote recently:
> Hi autoconfers,
>
> a new version of the addressing model draft is out since yesterday.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-00
>
> Please send to the list any comments you may have about it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Emmanuel
>

---

From: Emmanuel Baccelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:36:20 +0200

Hi Alex,
Thanks for your feedback. Can you be more explicit about what is in the
draft, that you disagree with, if anything?

Regards,

Emmanuel

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Alexandru Petrescu <
[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:08:41 +0200

> draft, that you disagree with, if anything?

I said, did you ask this WG before submitting a WG item?

Alex
(sorry for being too direct)

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Emmanuel
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Alexandru Petrescu 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Emmanuel,
> 
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Thomas Heide Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:48:28 +0200

Alex, All,

I kinda understand your reaction, let me try to explain the reasoning.

Until now draft-baccelli-autoconf-adhoc-addr-mode was the only  
addressing model document available. Clearly the working group has  
been engaged in reviewing and discussing the document actively, on the  
list and in meetings. It was the impression from those discussions  
that the document and the discussions had captured the issues that had  
been raised - at least, we were aware of no as-yet unaddressed (in the  
document or in the discussions) issues.

We thought it was a good idea to go ahead and move this to a WG  
document and continue the iterations at the WG level in hopes of  
accelerating making progress.

Our read from the WG is, that everybody wants to get this model  
document passed and out of the way -- and then move on to the actual  
autoconf mechanisms/protocols sooner rather than later.

Yes, we didn't really ask the WG permission explicitly this time. This  
means we might have to ask forgiveness, if we in fact moved too  
quickly. We're willing to do that, of course. We're also ready to ask  
Mark and Emmanuel to resubmit as a non-working group document if that  
becomes the case.

Above all we have the feeling that the WG needs to move forward, not  
backward, and that draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-00.txt seemed  
to be the best start on that path forward.

I will therefore also second the request for Emmanuel that any  
technical issues with the document be brought forward such that we can  
either get Mark and Emmanuel to fold those into the document -- or can  
ask that the document be resubmitted as a non-working group document  
if that is not possible, and then ask the WG for a strategy to move  
forward.

I note that we're about 7 months past the milestone for initial  
document submission, and one month past the deadline for IESG  
submission or WG closure, so there's a discussions with the ADs coming  
up soon, I'm sure.....

Cheers,

Thomas

On Oct 21, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

>> Thanks for your feedback. Can you be more explicit about what is in  
>> the draft, that you disagree with, if anything?
>
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked] 
>>  <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>>    Hi Emmanuel,

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:57:42 +0200

Thomas,

I thought there was a Design Team formed, and the output of this DT was 
draft-baccelli-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model "IP addressing model in ad hoc 
networks".  As a DT document, it has more weight than being simply 'the 
only doc available'.  But also as a DT document it is subject to WG 
adoption.

When you say "we thought it was a good idea to..." - who is "we"? 
Myself and at least somebody else part of this WG were surprised about 
this submission.  I don't say I wouldn't have voted for, but I was 
surprised to see it appearing as draft-ietf-autoconf.

You are asking whether a re-submission is needed: I don't know, I have 
not seen this situation before.

This is confnusing, at least from a procedural standpoint.  See below 
the relevant paragraphs from rfc2418 about DTs, FWIW.

I know that when a WG item submission is made to the System, an email 
approval is required from the Chairs.  Maybe we should suggest the 
System (tools.ietf.org) to add something involving the WG as well.

Yours,

Alex

rfc2418:
> 6.5. Design teams
> 
>    It is often useful, and perhaps inevitable, for a sub-group of a
>    working group to develop a proposal to solve a particular problem.
>    Such a sub-group is called a design team.  In order for a design team
>    to remain small and agile, it is acceptable to have closed membership
>    and private meetings.  Design teams may range from an informal chat
>    between people in a hallway to a formal set of expert volunteers that
>    the WG chair or AD appoints to attack a controversial problem.  The
>    output of a design team is always subject to approval, rejection or
>    modification by the WG as a whole.

Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :
> addressing model document available. Clearly the working group has been 
> engaged in revidewing and discussing the document actively, on the list 
> and in meetings. It was the impression from those discussions that the 
> document and the discussions had captured the issues that had been 
> raised - at least, we were aware of no as-yet unaddressed (in the 
> We thought it was a good idea to go ahead and move this to a WG document 
> and continue the iterations at the WG level in hopes of accelerating 
> making progress.
> 
> Our read from the WG is, that everybody wants to get this model document 
> passed and out of the way -- and then move on to the actual autoconf 
> mechanisms/protocols sooner rather than later.
> 
> means we might have to ask forgiveness, if we in fact moved too quickly. 
> We're willing to do that, of course. We're also ready to ask Mark and 
> Emmanuel to resubmit as a non-working group document if that becomes the 
> case.
> 
> backward, and that draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-00.txt seemed to 
> be the best start on that path forward.
> 
> I will therefore also second the request for Emmanuel that any technical 
> issues with the document be brought forward such that we can either get 
> Mark and Emmanuel to fold those into the document -- or can ask that the 
> document be resubmitted as a non-working group document if that is not 
> possible, and then ask the WG for a strategy to move forward.
> 
> I note that we're about 7 months past the milestone for initial document 
> submission, and one month past the deadline for IESG submission or WG 
> closure, so there's a discussions with the ADs coming up soon, I'm 
> sure.....
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Thomas
>

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:35:42 +0200

Hi,

I fully agree with Alex's view on this. The procedures are there to be
followed, even if in this particular case the DT draft were 100% fine
and all the WG members supported it (the technical merits of the draft
and the WG support is not the point of this discussion, that's part of a
different one that Emmanuel did well in opening).

My two cents on this (as another "surprised WG member"),

Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:32:39 +0200

Ryuji,

This is the second time things go strange in this WG.  The first time 
was at the DT formation time.

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.

This all looks _Very_ _Very_ strange.

Makes me change mind!

Alex

RYUJI WAKIKAWA a écrit :
> Hi Alex and all,
> 
> Thomas and I did discuss this action in a hurry before hiroshima.
> As a result, we need to explain this situation after the WG document 
> publication.
> We understand that the explanation to WG should be made before the 
> action and
> really apologize to this point.
> 
> Let me add a few more points to Thomas's email.
> 
> First, we formed a DT for the strawman of the WG document.
> However, we have decided to publish the DT document as an individual 
> document,
> since we didn't know whether WG support the idea of DT at that point.
> 
> Here is a copy from my email to the list.
> 
> On 2009/03/12, at 17:44, Ryuji Wakikawa wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As Jari mentioned in the new plan for the AUTOCONF WG, we have decided
>> to form a design team to rapidly produce a -00 strawman of the first
>> working group deliverable, discussing (citing Jari) "a practical way
>> of configuring MANET networks".
> 
> After  more than 6 months, we have discussed this document in our WG.
> It seems to us that a document is reasonable to accept as a WG document.
> For example,  the consensus call of IPv4 link-local issue was made to 
> the individual document (which is rare case in IETF).
> It's time to concentrate our efforts to  the WG goal, producing "IP 
> addressing model for MANET".
> 
> We believe DT will lead the discussion in AUTOCONF WG,
> but this document now belongs to WG (i.e.  not to DT anymore).
> Anybody can review and discuss the document in the WG.
> Your continuous discussion and review are highly important and appreciated.
> 
> It it does not make sense to you, please send email to two chairs 
> (Thomas and Ryuji).
> If we found WG wants to have clear consensus call to adapt draft-bacelli,
> WG chairs can step the procedure back and ask the consensus call.
> 
> thanks,
> ryuji
> 
> 
> On 2009/10/21, at 5:57, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> 
>> Thomas,
>>
>> I thought there was a Design Team formed, and the output of this DT 
>> was draft-baccelli-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model "IP addressing model in 
>> ad hoc networks".  As a DT document, it has more weight than being 
>> simply 'the only doc available'.  But also as a DT document it is 
>> subject to WG adoption.
>>
>>> been engaged in revidewing and discussing the document actively, on 
>>> the list and in meetings. It was the impression from those 
>>> discussions that the document and the discussions had captured the 
>>> issues that had been raised - at least, we were aware of no as-yet 
>>> unaddressed (in the document or in the discussions) issues.
>>> Yes, we didn't really ask the WG permission explicitly this time. 
>>> This means we might have to ask forgiveness, if we in fact moved too 
>>> technical issues with the document be brought forward such that we 
>>> can either get Mark and Emmanuel to fold those into the document -- 
>>> or can ask that the document be resubmitted as a non-working group 
>>> document if that is not possible, and then ask the WG for a strategy 
>>> to move forward.
>>> submission or WG closure, so there's a discussions with the ADs 
>>> coming up soon, I'm sure.....
>>> Cheers,
>>> Thomas