Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Procedure

From: "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:15:16 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, October 28, 2009 4:57 am, Jari Arkko wrote:

> Alex,
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>

Also, duly note that the draft-bernardos-autoconf-addressing-model
document did not exist and the chairs (and the WG) were not made aware
that it was under development, at the time of approval of
draft-ietf-autoconf-...

Your opinion is, however, noted.

Thomas

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

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:26:31 +0100

Hi Thomas,

> that it was under development, at the time of approval of

True, we have been working on this since last IETF meeting. Had we (the
authors) known that we were about to adopt a document as WG draft, we
would have submitted it earlier.

As I mentioned in a previous e-mail, I think it'd be better to have a
discussion on the content of both drafts before really deciding on which
one should be taken as baseline, but this is my personal opinion. Sorry,
but after 5 years working on this (and I've been contributing to the WG
since the very beginning) I don't buy the "we are in a hurry"
argument :-). Discussing both drafts in Hiroshima would not harm and may
be help.

Thanks,

Carlos

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

---

From: "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:31:48 -0700 (PDT)

Carlos,

Ok, let's try this, then, to see how much of a hurry we're really in:

  o Jari, can we have our milestone moved another 5 years
    into the future?

;)

Thomas

On Wed, October 28, 2009 5:26 am, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:

>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> authors) known that we were about to adopt a document as WG draft, we would
> have submitted it earlier.
>
> since the very beginning) I don't buy the "we are in a hurry" argument
> :-). Discussing both drafts in Hiroshima would not harm and may
> be help.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Carlos
>
>
>>
>>>  somehow missed that a large part of the group disagreed with the
>>> idea of adopting the DT document.
>>>
>>> Jari
>>>
>>>
>>>

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:45:35 +0100

Sorry Thomas, I don't get this joke, especially if coming from one WG
chair.

I'm talking about serious things here.

Thanks,

Carlos

---

From: Emmanuel Baccelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:52:14 +0100

Hi Carlos,

maybe there is very simple reason why you don't get the joke: there is no
joke, unfortunately.

Emmanuel

2009/10/28 Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:52:50 +0100

>   o Jari, can we have our milestone moved another 5 years

Thomas - can we have agenda requests for the meeting in advance?

Or are you going to decide only the DT document gets presented - despite 
the discussion on the draft-bernardos?

I noticed there's a deadline this midnight for the draft agenda.

This group never submitted agenda in advance, let alone the slides.

Can we follow - not the procedure - but some widely used IETF manners in 
this WG too?

Alex

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:55:12 +0200

Carlos,

> I don't buy the "we are in a hurry" argument :-)

I don't mind discussing both documents in Hiroshima -- even if 
(hopefully) one is a WG document, I'm sure discussion of both can be 
useful for the WG, and improves both documents. At least the discussion 
is on-topic for the working group's #1 deliverable.

However, you ARE in a hurry. Precisely because its already taken so many 
years. We really need to see short-term result from the addressing model 
document, or we must question how useful it is for all of us to put 
cycles into this working group. Its really publish-or-perish for the WG, 
quite literally :-)

Jari

---

From: "Thomas Heide Clausen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:05:26 -0700 (PDT)

On Wed, October 28, 2009 5:52 am, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

>> o Jari, can we have our milestone moved another 5 years into the future?
>>
>

The working-group is on a tight schedule, and we have specific work to do.
I therefore would suggest that we do not open up for any odd presentation
-- we won't have time for that.

However...

There have been, as I count it, three documents discussed on the list
recently: the Baccelli/Townsley address model document, the
Perkins/Baccelli "link model" document and the Carlos/Ronald address model
document.

The two latter have emerged in the discussions only recently, but appear
to be useful for the WG to have presented.

My *personal* suggestion would be to ask the authors of each of these
three documents to present, and if they're willing to do so of course have
those on the agenda.

As for slides in advance, we always try to get them on-line before the WG
sessions, but as there often is a lot of work ongoing and discussions
happening between WG participants during the IETF week that is being
reflected in the presentations, I'm not sure we can reasonably do much
earlier than that.

Thomas

>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> document did not exist and the chairs (and the WG) were not made
>>>> aware that it was under development, at the time of approval of
>>>> draft-ietf-autoconf-...
>>>  discussion on the content of both drafts before really deciding on
>>> which one should be taken as baseline, but this is my personal
>>> opinion. Sorry, but after 5 years working on this (and I've been
>>> contributing to the WG since the very beginning) I don't buy the "we
>>> are in a hurry" argument :-). Discussing both drafts in Hiroshima
>>> would not harm and may be help.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Carlos
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:09:37 +0100

> cycles into this working group. Its really publish-or-perish for the WG, 

Jari,

I do not accept this pressure.  It's not my fault these years of 
non-achievements - I wasn't in AUTOCONF.

One would better try to identify _why_ there are non-productive AUTOCONF 
years of reasons behind us.  See how the same lack of procedure (no 
agenda, no formal calls, secrecy, and more) is in action now.

Putting pressure is not solving the problem - moreover it scares people 
away.

If there is such pressure one would also consider the AD sponsoring way, 
why not(?)

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:14:12 +0100

Thomas Heide Clausen a écrit :
>> Or are you going to decide only the DT document gets presented -
>> despite the discussion on the draft-bernardos?
>> 
> 
> The working-group is on a tight schedule, and we have specific work
> to do. I therefore would suggest that we do not open up for any odd
> presentation -- we won't have time for that.
> 
> However...
> 
> Perkins/Baccelli "link model" document and the Carlos/Ronald address
> model document.
> 
> The two latter have emerged in the discussions only recently, but
> appear to be useful for the WG to have presented.
> 
>  three documents to present, and if they're willing to do so of
> course have those on the agenda.

Thomas I agree with your personal suggestion - make now a request for 
agenda items.

Your draft agenda is due this midnight - are you ready for it?  Are you
going to act under pressure - again?

And please publish here the draft agenda tomorrow, thank you.

> As for slides in advance, we always try to get them on-line before
> the WG sessions, but as there often is a lot of work ongoing and
> discussions happening between WG participants during the IETF week
> that is being reflected in the presentations, I'm not sure we can
> reasonably do much earlier than that.

I agree mostly.  Some groups manage to get the slides well in advance.
Why not AUTOCONF?

It is useful for people wondering whether attending or not, be it
locally or remotely.

Alex

>> Can we follow - not the procedure - but some widely used IETF
>> manners in this WG too?
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> 
>>> ;)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thomas
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> Also, duly note that the
>>>>> draft-bernardos-autoconf-addressing-model document did not
>>>>> exist and the chairs (and the WG) were not made aware that it
>>>>> was under development, at the time of approval of 
>>>>> draft-ietf-autoconf-...
>>>> True, we have been working on this since last IETF meeting. Had
>>>> we (the authors) known that we were about to adopt a document
>>>> as WG draft, we would have submitted it earlier.
>>>> 
>>>> As I mentioned in a previous e-mail, I think it'd be better to
>>>> have a discussion on the content of both drafts before really
>>>> deciding on which one should be taken as baseline, but this is
>>>> my personal opinion. Sorry, but after 5 years working on this
>>>> (and I've been contributing to the WG since the very beginning)
>>>> I don't buy the "we are in a hurry" argument :-). Discussing
>>>> both drafts in Hiroshima would not harm and may be help.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Carlos
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf
>>>>>> mailing list [email-masked] 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf
>>>>> mailing list [email-masked] 
>>>> -- Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net GPG
>>>> FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing
>>> list [email-masked] 
>> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing
>> list [email-masked]

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:33:12 -0700

Hi Alex,

On 2009/10/28, at 6:14, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

>> recently: the Baccelli/Townsley address model document, the Perkins/ 
>> Baccelli "link model" document and the Carlos/Ronald address
>> model document.
> Thomas I agree with your personal suggestion - make now a request  
> for agenda items.
>

We've published the draft agenda.
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/agenda/autoconf.txt

The agenda is still tentative one,because we want to take further  
action/decision after we collect all the WG opinions (due is tomorrow).
There is another deadline (11/2) for the final WG agenda.  We will  
deliver you the final one before that date.

> It is useful for people wondering whether attending or not, be it

Agree, it is useful to have slides at the right time.
However, AUTOCONF is currently running the adaption call. The chairs  
wait for all the WG opinions.

As soon as we will fix the agenda, we will solicit the slides to the  
presenters.
You can ask presenters to upload the slide on time with certain  
pressure;-)

cheers,
ryuji

>>>>>> was under development, at the time of approval of draft-ietf- 
>>>>>> autoconf-...
>>>>>>> mailing list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>>>>> mailing list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>>> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
>>> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
>>> autoconf
>
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:01:49 +0100

> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/agenda/autoconf.txt

Thanks!

Do you know whether there's anybody else who would wish to present 
topics around the practical addressing model?

> action/decision after we collect all the WG opinions (due is tomorrow).

Yes, this night 24pm GMT - is a "draft agenda" deadline of IETF:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates.html#76

> deliver you the final one before that date.

Yes, please announce the final agenda to the group thank you.

Alex

> You can ask presenters to upload the slide on time with certain pressure;-)
> 
> cheers,
> ryuji
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>> Thomas

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:09:39 -0700

Hi Alex,

> topics around the practical addressing model?

Chairs has decided not to open the presentation at this time, since we  
will certainly spend plenty of time on the current issues.
This is still tentative one. If there is enough discussion for the  
other topics in the ML before Hiroshima, we will consider to give a  
slot.

> Yes, please announce the final agenda to the group thank you.

We will!

thanks
ryuji

>> However, AUTOCONF is currently running the adaption call. The  
>> chairs wait for all the WG opinions.
>> As soon as we will fix the agenda, we will solicit the slides to  
>> the presenters.

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:52:07 +0200

Alex,

> One would better try to identify _why_ there are non-productive 
> AUTOCONF years of reasons behind us.  See how the same lack of 
> procedure (no agenda, no formal calls, secrecy, and more) is in action 
> now.

No organization on this planet is willing to look at infinitely long 
projects. There's always a deadline. There's always other, competing 
things that we could be spending our time on.

I have tried to identify the reasons why we have not succeeded yet in 
AUTOCONF. Attempting to specify the general theory of all possible 
configuration situations is at the top of my list. This is why the 
charter and myself insist on developing a practical, achievable 
addressing model. One way of doing that is to explain how practical 
networks do it.

Look at the working group. It is one big brain trust - if we stay 
focused we CAN write one ten page document on how ad hoc networks get 
configured.  Really. Then we can move on to more interesting stuff, like 
developing new protocol tools.

Jari