Subject: Re: [midcom] Draft agenda

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 14:18:19 -0500

Melinda,

I fully appreciate that the overwhelming majority of the work of IETF
working groups is done via mailing lists. I participate in them as much
as my time permits.

I requested presentation time because that seemed to be the way that
other working groups that I participate in work. Their meeting agendas
give specific amounts of time to presentation of issues that were raised
in e-mail discussion of I-Ds. I did not intend to completely represent
the tunneling idea, but simply to summarize the admittedly scant e-mail
discussion that there has been and try to resolve the issue of whether
or not the MIDCOM protocol should include support for tunnels.

I agree that there has not been much discussion of this, but my reading
of what discussion there has been is that it's split pro and con. I
thought this justified a few minutes of meeting time, but I will defer
to your opinion that it does not.

Jim

Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>@ietf.org on 07/02/2002 01:50:28 PM

Sent by:  [email-masked]

To:   James Renkel/MW/US/3Com
cc:   [email-masked]
Subject:  Re: [midcom] Draft agenda

At 01:33 PM 7/2/02 -0500, [email-masked] wrote:
>Please add the I-D "draft-renkel-middlebox-tunnels-00.txt" to the agenda.
>I will limit the presentation to 5 minutes. Hopefully, we can limit the
>discussion to another 5 or 10 minutes.

We don't do presentations.

Some process things:

1) The work of the IETF is accomplished on mailing lists.  Every
four months or so we try to meet face-to-face in order to resolve
things that could benefit from "lively" discussion and in order to
stress ourselves with insufficient sleep and too much heavy food
2) Meeting time is for discussion only - we don't do presentations
3) Nobody gets meeting time unless they've got specific issues
requiring resolution or for very short status updates (those updates
belong on the mailing list, too).
4) The requirements document has been approved by the working group
and the IESG, and is now sitting in the RFC editor's queue.  We can't
go back and revisit it without changing the WG charter
5) We work by rough consensus and dashed hopes, which means that there
has to be *substantial* agreement among working group participants to
move something along, and even then it faces the possibility of being
rejected by the IESG
and most of all,
6) The work of the IETF is accomplished on mailing lists.

It's my understanding that what you'd like to see happen is for the
requirements and framework documents to be extended to include RSIP
tunnels.  You've proposed this several times and there doesn't seem
to be agreement from others.  The process of developing both documents
took over a year and Mike Borella participated in the first BOF
that kicked off this effort; I don't see support for using RSIP
tunneling let alone for going back and revving our foundation documents
despite there having been plenty of opportunity for your ideas to
have been heard.

Melinda

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom