Subject: Again no multi6 at IETF#56

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:03:20 +0000

Hi,

What is required to break the impasse of no progress within the IETF on
multi6?

There are some good ideas in the "rebel" ipv6mh group (e.g. Christian's
ideas for incremental solutions using existing tools).  Even the multi6
chairs were seen in ipv6mh meetings :)

We really don't want to be appraoching IETF#57 with this bizarre situation
continuing, or do we? 

Tim

---

From: Peter Tattam <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:29:21 +1100 (EST)

I am interested in completing a solution which I sketched out a couple of
months back, but my schedule is rather full so it won't be ready for the coming
IETF meeting, but I had planned on something by the next meeting.

Peter

--
Peter R. Tattam                            [email-masked]
Managing Director,    Trumpet Software International Pty Ltd
Hobart, Australia,  Ph. +61-3-6245-0220,  Fax +61-3-62450210

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:25:28 -0500

> What is required to break the impasse of no progress within the IETF on

I'm not *recommending* this, but any action/inaction on the part of the 
IESG,
including the ADs for this WG, is appealable provided that one follows
the formal appeals process.

Frankly, I think the ADs and WG Chairs for multi6 are well across the 
line,
outside the boundaries of civilised behaviour to not even permit an 
active WG
with active on-charter list discussions to meet to discuss items listed 
in an
IESG-approved WG charter.  This is particularly true since it is not a 
one-time
occurrance, but a repeated behaviour on their part.

Yours,

Ran
[email-masked]

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:23:09 -0500

> IESG, including the ADs for this WG, is appealable provided that one
> follows the formal appeals process.

i am impressed by your approach to technology and engineering.  welcome
to the new ietf where we care more about process and politics than protocol
and product.  sheesh!

> line, outside the boundaries of civilised behaviour to not even permit an
> active WG with active on-charter list discussions to meet to discuss items
> listed in an IESG-approved WG charter.  This is particularly true since it
> is not a one-time occurrance, but a repeated behaviour on their part.

quite an assertion.  can you point to the request sent to [email-masked]
to hold a meeting?  if not, ... where the sun don't shine.

to be blunt, where's the protein?  where is any good approach to this
problem that does not derive from 8+8?  and where is any progress on
8+8 that has not been stiffled by a middle-school clique approach to
working on it (thanks, ran)?

randy

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:55:07 +0859 ()

Randy;

> to be blunt, where's the protein?

I'm glad to know that you asked for not a requirement draft but the
protein.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:48:11 -0500

> to the new ietf where we care more about process and politics than 

Kindly check in the mirror.  It is the IESG members who have turned the 
IETF
into a world where "process and politics" matter.  And one of the chairs
of this WG is in fact an active IESG member, in addition to being 
co-chair,
though he is not the AD for this area.

> to be blunt, where's the protein?

There is a requirements I-D.  Several folks here would like to discuss
that I-D in-person in order to try to work through the details needed
to advance that to RFC.  Said activity is listed in the WG Charter that
was approved by the IESG.

> where is any good approach to this problem that does not derive from 
> 8+8?
> and where is any progress on 8+8 that has not been stiffled by a 
> middle-school
> clique approach to working on it (thanks, ran)?

I'm not aware of anyone doing any collaborative work on 8+8 outside of 
this
list.  And I haven't been aware of any such work since the IRTF NSRG 
disbanded.
Maybe I'm missing some other data ?  Or were you suggesting that 
discussing topics
that are in-charter for an IRTF RG  inside that IRTF RG is "a 
middle-school
clique approach" ?

Oh, I forgot, the IESG gets spun up about the IRTF because the IESG 
don't
control the IRTF.  My mistake.  My apologies for forgetting that being 
on
the IESG is all about top-down control these days.

If the AD or the WG Co-Chairs want to provide guidance, that would be 
really
helpful.  Blocking WG meetings to discuss topics clearly in-charter 
without
providing such guidance (what is happening in this WG) is not terribly 
helpful,
IMHO.

Would you rather take pot shots or provide some help to the WG ?
If the former, it would be more intellectually honest to just shutdown
the WG than to play the political game of blocking in-person meetings.

Ran

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:07:28 +0100 (CET)

> to the new ietf where we care more about process and politics than protocol

Is it just me or did we have a discussion or two about protocols? (Not
sure what "product" in this context would be.)

> to hold a meeting?  if not, ... where the sun don't shine.

I clearly remember asking the chairs to schedule a meeting for Atlanta.

> problem that does not derive from 8+8?

There are plenty of proposals and some drafts. Their good- and
derivativeness would be good subjects for discussion, I think. Also,
AFAIK everyone who attended found the unofficial meetings in Atlanta
useful.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:58:33 +0000

> AFAIK everyone who attended found the unofficial meetings in Atlanta

Absolutely.  Hence the question as to why the brainstorming can't be
taken officially on board.   I find it both baffling and frustrating that
we've gone two meetings without a multi6 session for what some people
argue is "the last missing piece of the IPv6 jigsaw".

Could we at least not get a BoF session scheduled, at least something on
the official agenda, maybe nearer the end so ipv6mh input from their
meetings can be tabled.

Tim