Subject: Re: [dispatch] IETF 113 - do you have something for DISPATCH?

From: Anton Tveretin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 05:10:25 +0500

Hi Kirsty,

I wrote two I-Ds, namely, draft-tveretin-dispatch-l2tp-sdp-02 and draft-tveretin-dispatch-remote-03, but I did not update them for a while (almost 5 years). I don't see any way to proceed with them. Is there any way? Is an implementation the right way? I do not see this as the intended approach to standartization.

I perceive the position of the IETF - and DISPATCH in particular - to suppress any grassroots initiative. I remember the story behind Dmitry Tyurin's HTML 6.0.

Also, I started SIP 2.5, but I never made it into an I-D.

Sincerely yours,

Anton Tveretin

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 09:43:35 -0500

Anton Tveretin <[email-masked]> writes:
> I wrote two I-Ds, namely, draft-tveretin-dispatch-l2tp-sdp-02 [...]

For reference:  draft-tveretin-dispatch-l2tp-sdp-02.txt is "This
document registeres new media type (application/l2tp) to be used with
SDP, and clarifies procedure to be used by peers for L2TP tunnels."

As always, the question is "How much support do you have?"  That has a
lot of aspects.  One is, "Are there people interested in working on this
document?"  Another is "Are there people interested in implementing
this?", which is closely related to, "Do people feel a unsatisfied need
that this would satisfy?"

Often the answers aren't well-correlated with, "Would this be a good
idea in principle?"

I'm reminded of when I did some work on "Happy Earballs", working out
how a SIP client should attempt to contact a SIP server in the general
case when the server's hostname resolves into multiple IPv4 and IPv6
addresses of unknown reachability.  The problem had even been raised by
some of the long-term experts in SIP.  But nobody was interested in
actually implementing it, which I strongly suspect is because in
practice SIP is used to replicate traditional telco networks, with
tightly controlled signaling paths in a network that has an overall
architecture -- if a client knows of a server's name, the architecture
ensures the addresses will connect.  (Which is much different from the
typical HTTP case.)

So the first step is what is called "socializing" your proposal, talking
to people in a fairly informal way to determine what interest you can
raise in the work.

Dale

---

From: Kirsty Paine <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 11:48:51 +0000

Hi Anton,

I'm sorry to hear your perception of the IETF to date is that it suppresses
grassroots initiatives. DISPATCH is here to help navigate options for new
work, explain some of the ways to move work forward, and can be
particularly welcoming for those newer to, or less familiar with, the IETF.

Patrick and I (dispatch co-chairs) will reach out to you separately, to
avoid list noise, about your options to progress your drafts.

Kirsty

On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 12:10 AM Anton Tveretin <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Hi Kirsty,
> I wrote two I-Ds, namely, draft-tveretin-dispatch-l2tp-sdp-02 and
> draft-tveretin-dispatch-remote-03, but I did not update them for a while
> (almost 5 years). I don't see any way to proceed with them. Is there any
> way? Is an implementation the right way? I do not see this as the intended
> approach to standartization.
> I perceive the position of the IETF - and DISPATCH in particular - to
> suppress any grassroots initiative. I remember the story behind Dmitry
> Tyurin's HTML 6.0.