Subject: [Roll] Minutes IETF-82

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:15:33 +0100

Hi,

The Minutes of the ROLL IETF-82 meetings have been uploaded: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/roll.txt

If you have any comments, please provide your comments by Nov 30 noon ET.

Many Thanks to Dan for the minutes !

Cheers.

JP.

---

From: Thomas Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:40:49 +0100

Dear JP, all,

I am concerned that the minutes are rather brief and high-level, and do not reflect in sufficient detail the issues that were discussed and capture the questions which were brought forward. I would suggest revising the minutes to better capture the discussions for posterity.

For example, and I will give but one example, but it applies throughout: for item 2, the minutes do not capture the issue that was given a lot of microphone-time: whether this document is supposed to be providing deployment guidelines and parametrization of RPL so as to make it operational in a given environment - or, rather, be a "marketing document". 

I recall mentioning at the mike that the WG chairs previously promised the applicability documents as the place where all (e.g.) my worries about how to make RPL work in the different deployments (or, even, if RPL could work in these deployments) would be laid to rest by explaining exactly how to parametrize RPL for these deployments. I also recall expressing some disappointment that this applicability document in its present form doesn't offer any of these guidelines whatsoever - but rather satisfies itself by asserting (as Geoff Mulligan pointed out at the mike) that the protocol works.

Adrian Farrel (RTG AD) suggested at the mike  that the document in its present form should aim for Informational - which, probably, is appropriate. However I also asked at the mike where, then, the "explaining exactly how to parametrize RPL for these deployments", which had been promised, would appear. (And, didn't get any answer to that question….)

On the very same item, I see that the draft being discussed is indicated as "draft-popa-roll-applicability-ami-04" - whereas I see in the tools server that "draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-04" exists -- are they different documents? Same documents with different names? Was the draft-ietf- version withdrawn? 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these comments for the minutes,

Respectfully yours,

Thomas

On Nov 21, 2011, at 8:15 PM, JP Vasseur wrote:

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

---

From: "Daniel King" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:24:17 -0000

Hi Thomas, 

Firstly thank you for taking the time to review the minutes. As the minute
taker let me try to respond to your concerns. 

My objective, as directed by the co-chairs, is to provide a synopsis of ROLL
discussions. The intention is NOT to provide a verbatim record of the ROLL
meeting. If anyone would like a reproduction of the session the audio is
recorded and archived  (http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf82/). If you, or
anyone else (actually this is highly encouraged), feel that the minutes are
not a reasonable summary then it would be helpful to suggest textual updates
and/or clarifications. These will then be reviewed by the minute taker and
attending co-chair(s), before being added to the record, if appropriate.
Moving forward you would be most welcome to join me as a minute taker at
future ROLL sessions. Or simply provide updates or clarifications to the
minutes I create.

Regarding your specific concerns and subsequent question concerning item 2
(draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-04). I disagree with you assessment, and
I quote "the minutes do not capture the issue that was given a lot of
microphone-time: whether this document is supposed to be providing
deployment guidelines and parametrization of RPL". The minutes specifically
state "A number of participants were concerned that the document excluded
comprehensive deployment information and detailed scalability information.".
Therefore any subsequent recommendation, question, or concern you have,
would be better directed to the authors, and/or relevant participants, via
the ROLL mailing list. If other ROLL contributors feel as strongly as you do
on this specific subject, or indeed any issue, they are entitled to support
you. The authors can then address your comments or not. Either way, the
imperfect but effective process of IETF "rough" consensus will be used to
sanity check the comment or request, with any suitable action being taken.
Acknowledging that no action may be a perfectly legitimate response. 

A final note, the draft listed under item 2 should be
"draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-04" and not
"draft-popa-roll-applicability-ami-04". This will be corrected in the next
version of the minutes.

Thanks!
Br, Dan. 
	
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Thomas Clausen
Sent: 23 November 2011 08:41
To: JP Vasseur
Cc: roll WG
Subject: Re: [Roll] Minutes IETF-82

Dear JP, all,

I am concerned that the minutes are rather brief and high-level, and do not
reflect in sufficient detail the issues that were discussed and capture the
questions which were brought forward. I would suggest revising the minutes
to better capture the discussions for posterity.

For example, and I will give but one example, but it applies throughout: for
item 2, the minutes do not capture the issue that was given a lot of
microphone-time: whether this document is supposed to be providing
deployment guidelines and parametrization of RPL so as to make it
operational in a given environment - or, rather, be a "marketing document". 

I recall mentioning at the mike that the WG chairs previously promised the
applicability documents as the place where all (e.g.) my worries about how
to make RPL work in the different deployments (or, even, if RPL could work
in these deployments) would be laid to rest by explaining exactly how to
parametrize RPL for these deployments. I also recall expressing some
disappointment that this applicability document in its present form doesn't
offer any of these guidelines whatsoever - but rather satisfies itself by
asserting (as Geoff Mulligan pointed out at the mike) that the protocol
works.

Adrian Farrel (RTG AD) suggested at the mike  that the document in its
present form should aim for Informational - which, probably, is appropriate.
However I also asked at the mike where, then, the "explaining exactly how to
parametrize RPL for these deployments", which had been promised, would
appear. (And, didn't get any answer to that question..)

On the very same item, I see that the draft being discussed is indicated as
"draft-popa-roll-applicability-ami-04" - whereas I see in the tools server
that "draft-ietf-roll-applicability-ami-04" exists -- are they different
documents? Same documents with different names? Was the draft-ietf- version
withdrawn? 

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these comments for the
minutes,

Respectfully yours,

Thomas

On Nov 21, 2011, at 8:15 PM, JP Vasseur wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The Minutes of the ROLL IETF-82 meetings have been uploaded:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/roll.txt

---

From: Thomas Clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:00:35 +0100

Dear Dan,

(I really do not want to throw stones at you, the minutes are the responsibility of the WG chairs. Let me profoundly thank you in passing for the service you do the community)

I am, of course, not expecting a meeting transcript, alas, a lot of IETF procedure depends on discussions and decisions being properly "on-record" and so I do believe that a synopsis isn't the proper form of minutes. Rather, something which retains the key points of the discussions explicitly would be extremely helpful.

Here's an example of minutes; while not perfect, a lot more informative for potential follow-up discussions:

	http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/minutes/manet.txt

Note that my email was a request to more explicitly be reflecting the discussions at the meeting, and the arguments brought forward, in the minutes so that these discussions and arguments are on-record.  My email was not about the IETF decision-making process, so I am not sure as to why you would bring this up?

As you indicate that a subsequent version of minutes are in the works, may I humbly request/suggest that it be more explicit as to the discussions, arguments (and their content), contention points and so on?

Respectfully yours,

Thomas

---

From: David Culler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:16:35 -0800

I thought that Dan did a good job of summarizing and up-leveling.  Indeed, there was more detailed discussion on some of the points at the meeting.  I was tempted to go in and augment that.  But after reviewing the notes, I felt that Dan had captured much of the outcome, if not all the commentary leading up to that.  I'm fine if folks want to have additional detail captured.  I prefer that it contain content, rather than positioning.