Subject: [netext] Flow Mobility Draft

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:46:04 -0500

Hi all,

I have been commenting on draft-ietf-netext-pmipv6-flowmob for years.
At some point the chairs set up the issue tracker and asked us to use
it. I did put many comments on the issue tracker.

In the meantime I have been involved in HA based flow binding entitled
Flow Bindings Initiated by Home Agents for Mobile IPv6
work was published as RFC 7109.

I have noticed that the editor has consistently ignored all these efforts.

Now that we came to a point of final decision, I decided to put all my
comments in writing. I made an xml file from Rev. 10
(BTW we had asked the editor to submit xml file for the draft but he
did not listen as usual) and produced a complete revision which I
called Rev. 11 and sent it in an email to the chairs.

Here are the main points in this draft:
This version is 5+ pages shorter than Rev. 10.
This version removes the use cases section and replaces it with an
overview of flow mobility actions describing the flow mobility
protocol explicitly.
This version removes FMI/FMA section.
This version adds Local Mobility Anchor Considerations, Mobile Access
Gateway considerations
and much needed IPv4 flow mobility support sections.
This section uses UPN/UPA messages to carry Flow Identification
Mobility option and Flow Binding Action Sub-Option
   and Target Care-of Address Sub-Option defined in RFC7109.

I propose this version to be used for further work and let Carlos
further maintain the document in just a few steps that are left.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:46:21 +0000

Behcet,

Please post your proposed changes to the ML. There is an editor for the
document, so its more appropriate you let the WG decide as what goes into
the document. Document editor just follows the WG consensus. You know this
all very well ..

Regards
Sri

On 7/8/14 9:46 AM, "Behcet Sarikaya" <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:44:26 -0500

Hi Sri,

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Behcet,
>
> Please post your proposed changes to the ML.

I expected that the chairs would post Rev. 11 on the list, it seems
they did not.
I am going to post it hopefully before the meeting.

> There is an editor for the

You mean when you say something it is consensus when I say something it is not?

The editor is supposed to handle all comments. I don't remember the
editors asking the WG for every comment made, is there consensus on
this comment? I did not know that IETF worked like that.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:03:23 +0000

Behcet,

Ok. Fair enough. I introduced a change related to UPN/FMI/FMA in the
current version of the document. The proposal based on offline discussions
was posted on June/19/2014 and subsequently when no objections were cited,
the editor of the document drafted the text and inserted the same into the
document. 

Now lets discuss the issue on your proposed changes. AFAIK, no one in the
WG, not a single person,  understands what they are and why they are
needed. When Suresh was chairing one of the NETEXT sessions, he ran a
consensus call on the same asking if any one understood what the issue is
and you know the result.

Bottom line, if you have a issue with the current version, please post
your issue. State the problem, suggest the text. Do not send your version
of the document to the Editor to be included. I will not agree with you or
any one else editing the document and inserting text for an issue that has
no WG consensus. The point is on the consensus on on the issue and let the
Editor do the drafting. But, if the issue is with the Editor's text, post
it to the group and challenge it/suggest changes, don't just edit WG
document.
 
Please play by the rules.

Sri

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:22:24 -0500

Sri,

> the editor of the document drafted the text and inserted the same into the

The story does not stop there, there are other thing on UPN/UPA (by
the way it is UPN/UPA not UPN/FMI/FMA).

> Please play by the rules.

I already did. You can check in the archive. I asked many questions
and received no replies.

I read Rev. 10 sentence by sentence. I don't think anybody else did
this in the WG.
I can claim that I know flow mobility and I can show my credentials.

My assessment was that the only way to incorporate my comments is to
edit Rev. 10 completely and that's what I did.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:30:32 +0000

Behcet,

>edit Rev. 10 completely and that's what I did.

Its not about your credentials. I don't understand your approach of
editing a WG document.
 
Chairs can comment, but as a WG member I'm not comfortable  with you or
any one else editing the document and posting the same with out WG review;
Why do we have a Editor then ? Editor may choose to accept all your
changes, that's at his discretion.  Please talk to Carlos.

Regards
Sri

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:47:01 -0400

All,
     Consider the following to be spoken with my AD hat firmly on my head...

> changes, that's at his discretion.  Please talk to Carlos.

Providing a complete re-write of a WG draft is not only inappropriate,
it is disruptive.  Please read that sentence again.

The WG has an issue tracker set up for this document.  It appears that
the document editor and chairs are using it to track issues raised.  Why
should these concerns be handled any differently.

Perusal of the mailing list archives and the minutes of previous netext
meetings reveals no support within the WG for these perceived defects.
That could be a result of a disagreement with the concerns raised or
could a result of people not understanding the concerns.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:20:07 -0500

Hi Brian,

> it is disruptive.  Please read that sentence again.

OK, understood.

> should these concerns be handled any differently.

Please refer to the Issue Tracker page:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/report/1

I did have several issues there.
The editor replied some of them but I was not happy with them.

Unfortunately the Tracker has not been used since two years even
though this document is still around.
Some comments were made on the list and I received no reply.

> could a result of people not understanding the concerns.

There at least two common concerns that I believe several people share:

where is the flow mobility protocol in the draft?

Why is LMA prefix allocation policy a use case for flow mobility protocol?

If the Editor does not understand these issues then he needs to read
the revision I mentioned.

I am withholding it as per your instructions, anybody can request it
I'll be happy to email it.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:24:17 -0400

> The editor replied some of them but I was not happy with them.

Has anyone expressed support for those concerns?

> There at least two common concerns that I believe several people share:

You believe or know?  Why have they not expressed those concerns on the
mailing list?  If they have, can you provide a pointer?

> the revision I mentioned.

No.  As I said, that is not an appropriate way to express concerns.  You
have several concise questions listed above.  Why not expound on those
with the WG?

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:10:55 -0500

Another issue with the editor has been his attuitude. He has always
been stubborn he never said things like why don't you provide some
text? or let's edit the document together.

This document has not originated from his own document, it has come
out of a design team so the editor's rigid approach was not warranted.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 10:13:12 -0400

> out of a design team so the editor's rigid approach was not warranted.

This document is a WG document.  That means there must be consensus to
add/delete/change text.  Show me the consensus to make the changes you
proposed.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Rajeev Koodli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 07:26:33 -0700

Hi Behcet,

let us not use this ML/WG for personal issues.

Just to be clear: Carlos is the Editor of this ID, and he has chairs
support.

At this point, my sense is that the WG is ready to move ahead with the ID.
Will talk during the meeting.

Regards,

-Rajeev

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:49:38 -0500

> add/delete/change text.  Show me the consensus to make the changes you

We discussed this with Sri on the list yesterday.
Comments are posted by individuals and the editor replies them. I am
not familiar with any IETF document that says that the commenter has
to get WG consensus in making his/her comments.

In any case I have not seen any other people who commented on this
draft did get WG consensus, maybe they did I did not see it.

It is quite common by WG draft editors to ask for text contributions.
I have been attending IETF since more than 10 years but maybe I don't
know anything.

In short my two questions above are valid, maybe the chairs can ask
this afternoon in the session.
I know that at least one person (Hidetoshi Yokata) has similar
concerns, but due to job situation he could not post any mails
recently on the list.

I have presentations in a parallel session this afternoon, I can maybe
only follow over Jabber.

Regards,

Behcet