Dear Lakshminath, > I left Dublin thinking, out of the p2pi efforts, TANA will be > a WG (there was strong consensus and agreement on the problem > space and what needs to be done) and ALTO may have another > BoF. As of today, there is a WG proposal on the table for > ALTO and in a different area from where we started; TANA is > on the BoF wiki. > > Next, my experiences in the past on BoFs that did not have > consensus have been dramatically different from what is > happening on ALTO. The IESG has really even refused to allow > another BoF much less directly started creating a working > group. So, it makes me wonder whether the rules have > recently been changed or whether they are selectively applied. I am not an IETF veteran, but from my experience it is perfectly ok for post-BoF discussions to happen on the mailing list and for these discussions to resolve some of the controversial issues at the BoF. I think this is was happened with ALTO. I also think that the IESG has been following the discussions on the mailing list and the WG Review is in fact a reaction to the agreement which has been found on the mailing list regarding the disagreements from the BoF. Just my two cents ... - Jan > -----Original Message----- > From: p2pi-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:p2pi-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Lakshminath Dondeti > Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 12:10 AM > To: Lisa Dusseault > Cc: p2pi@xxxxxxxx; IESG IESG; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [p2pi] WG Review: Application-Layer Traffic > Optimization (alto) > > On 10/10/2008 12:21 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > Lakshminath and Vidya, > > > > Vijay, Enrico and Stefano have said what I was going to say (e.g. > > below) > > -- as sponsoring AD for this charter I've been following the WG > > discussion, working with the rest of the IESG, and talking > to people > > to confirm that there's better consensus on the list, even if there > > was confusion at the BOF. This IETF Last Call is also part of > > confirming whether there's now consensus. > > Hi Lisa, > > My concern can be put in really simple terms. We have some > really very confusing processes and we seem to add to the > confusion and not make things simpler. > > I left Dublin thinking, out of the p2pi efforts, TANA will be > a WG (there was strong consensus and agreement on the problem > space and what needs to be done) and ALTO may have another > BoF. As of today, there is a WG proposal on the table for > ALTO and in a different area from where we started; TANA is > on the BoF wiki. > > Next, my experiences in the past on BoFs that did not have > consensus have been dramatically different from what is > happening on ALTO. The IESG has really even refused to allow > another BoF much less directly started creating a working > group. So, it makes me wonder whether the rules have > recently been changed or whether they are selectively applied. > > I am also confused by your use of the word consensus; you say > that you've "talked to people" to confirm that there's > "better consensus on the list," but also say that the charter > review is also part of the consensus process. Shouldn't > there be a call for consensus? > > > > > It's difficult to write a charter without actually designing the > > solution. > > This is an interesting opinion. May I translate that to mean > that there > is already a solution in the minds of the people who wrote > the charter? > > Why then would we bother with the proposed requirements > effort, writing > down a problem statement and all the rest? Why not put an > RFC number on > the solution? > > It also makes me wonder what your opinion on the following from 2418. > > " - Is the proposed work plan an open IETF effort or is it an attempt > to "bless" non-IETF technology where the effect of > input from IETF > participants may be limited?" > > > What would help with the charter, even now, is for people to > > write up proposals for the solution -- ideally in the form of > > Internet-Drafts. > > This seems to be starkly different from the process I know > of. Are you > really suggesting that people come up with solutions to help with the > charter? What problem are we solving? What are the requirements? > Based on the proposal that was sent out, we won't have > consensus on all > of those until Oct 2009 or later. > > Apr 2009: Working Group Last Call for problem statement > Jun 2009: Submit problem statement to IESG as Informational > Aug 2009: Working Group Last Call for requirements document > Oct 2009: Submit requirements document to IESG as Informational > > > I haven't yet selected chairs for the WG, so as you > > can imagine editors and authors aren't yet selected. > > > It would be most > > excellent to see some individual proposals before a > committee gets their > > hands on them :) > > I am sorry Lisa, but I am really confused by your request for > proposals > before we even agree on the problem. I am hoping for a clarification. > > thanks, > Lakshminath > > > > > Lisa > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani > > <vkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:vkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > And since the BoF, much has changed to narrow the scope of the > > charter down to more manageable pieces as well as establish a > > channel with IRTF to move certain aspects of the work there > > (as the timeline in my previous email indicated.) > > > > Lakshminath Dondeti wrote: > > > > > > > > My perception and my understanding of some of the dissenting > > opinions > > was that some of those need to be worked out before > creating a > > working group. > > > > > > But I believe that we have done exactly that: the list has been > > busy since Dublin on attempts to move the work forward > in a manner > > that is conducive to all participants. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > p2pi mailing list > p2pi@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2pi > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf