From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Oct 17 11:38:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0EDA21F84EE; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:38:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hEekUUHDinbL; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CBB21F84EA; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9HIcX09023662; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:38:33 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (westford-nat.juniper.net [66.129.232.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9HIcVOJ023648 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:38:32 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , Subject: Routing ADs Open Office in Atlanta Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:38:33 +0100 Message-ID: <073b01cdac96$9d9916a0$d8cb43e0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac2slpo1YVH5xNziTOiiRLLSB9qB1w== Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:38:36 -0000 Hi, Sunday 14.30 to 16.00 Location is the IESG Breakout Room. Please ask a member of the Secretariat or look for an email nearer the time to decode exactly which room that will be. Everyone welcome. Come and raise your concerns, issues, ideas for routing or the operation of the Area. Thanks, Adrian and Stewart From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Thu Oct 18 02:16:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF88C21F8619; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.563 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ra2HgWKAFyMT; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:16:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B880521F8618; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fl11so10098217vcb.31 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:16:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=7x5WIDYqK2oII+j0qPd8/pueNSUlGDeRCJcCUrXsXHU=; b=WA7XtO4OgASvGY4tRaE/hiEX3NWPCPNB4XgYxbKRdlNa8Ogyu5nhKBZDBlDWVi0bDJ JnBav5edoklUsrhkmxMErllzg8Qi2AVjzdsMy+1RUI6JtRrvhmXteY//KaLpMW/SomDd YI+ZuAPyvC9KlDK5q54SF8EqcKOtNkk+v9isTheKurUI+LqsDQ+s7dN/iQYGfb+xOkFJ Jg771fXEUCD8i34AtgB5/ZMLkK0ia3eq4hquN7muq9/8enHSBzgVcJKlPp/ETw+vgKjo vq5DxIk1PcY3Hc0mD5W83qmp5PAXqOjjfuYgjv4lGiSMtpzBEKTLOA2aF7biSQf/kasE Q+5g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.252.67 with SMTP id zq3mr2652465vec.43.1350551761171; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.204.9 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:16:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <073b01cdac96$9d9916a0$d8cb43e0$@olddog.co.uk> References: <073b01cdac96$9d9916a0$d8cb43e0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:16:00 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Routing ADs Open Office in Atlanta From: Abdussalam Baryun To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org, rtg-chairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:16:02 -0000 Hi Adrian, I want to start from now to post my questions if possible, because I may not be able to be in Atlanta. My questions are: 1- How can we have IETF MANET and ROLL WGs guided to work together to advise participants not to overlap concepts related to such WG? 2- How can we make any WG within Routing Area to concider the mailing list as the point of making/taking/suggesting decisions not only through Face-to-Face meetings? 3- Do we in IETF concider WG minutes document without consensus of WG? thanking you, AB On 10/17/12, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > Sunday 14.30 to 16.00 > > Location is the IESG Breakout Room. Please ask a member of the Secretariat > or > look for an email nearer the time to decode exactly which room that will > be. > > Everyone welcome. > Come and raise your concerns, issues, ideas for routing or the operation of > the > Area. > > Thanks, > Adrian and Stewart > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Oct 18 05:57:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEDE621F859E; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:57:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xt6IZj3mMfST; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E875221F8496; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9ICuw2W027446; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:56:58 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (ip-64-134-64-1.public.wayport.net [64.134.64.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9ICuvlR027437 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:56:58 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Abdussalam Baryun'" References: <073b01cdac96$9d9916a0$d8cb43e0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: Routing ADs Open Office in Atlanta Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:56:59 +0100 Message-ID: <088501cdad30$105d5540$3117ffc0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQLTtEcZuCDkz7wz+jxq33GCrcbkngICen2BlaLi3fA= Content-Language: en-gb Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, routing-discussion@ietf.org, rtg-chairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:57:01 -0000 Hi Abdussalam, You'll excuse me, I hope, if I respond to your email just on routing-discussion@ietf.org to avoid cross-posting and duplicates, etc. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@gmail.com] > Sent: 18 October 2012 10:16 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: rtg-chairs@ietf.org; routing-discussion@ietf.org; rtg-dir@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Routing ADs Open Office in Atlanta > > Hi Adrian, > > I want to start from now to post my questions if possible, because I > may not be able to be in Atlanta. My questions are: > > 1- How can we have IETF MANET and ROLL WGs guided to work together to > advise participants not to overlap concepts related to such WG? > > 2- How can we make any WG within Routing Area to concider the mailing > list as the point of making/taking/suggesting decisions not only > through Face-to-Face meetings? > > 3- Do we in IETF concider WG minutes document without consensus of WG? > > thanking you, > > AB > > On 10/17/12, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Sunday 14.30 to 16.00 > > > > Location is the IESG Breakout Room. Please ask a member of the Secretariat > > or > > look for an email nearer the time to decode exactly which room that will > > be. > > > > Everyone welcome. > > Come and raise your concerns, issues, ideas for routing or the operation of > > the > > Area. > > > > Thanks, > > Adrian and Stewart > > > > _______________________________________________ > > routing-discussion mailing list > > routing-discussion@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > > From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Oct 18 09:16:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BC721F8803 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:16:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E9BAXoc6w33d for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:16:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (asmtp4.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00DC21F8806 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp4.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9IGGNc6015782; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:16:23 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (ixe-nat1.juniper.net [193.110.54.36]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp4.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9IGGLQV015754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:16:23 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Abdussalam Baryun'" Subject: AB's three questions [Was: Routing ADs Open Office in Atlanta] Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:16:23 +0100 Message-ID: <08d301cdad4b$ebadc9c0$c3095d40$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac2tS1q+ItYGQ+92TWSlQu0vNHw66g== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:16:30 -0000 Hi, > I want to start from now to post my questions if possible, because I > may not be able to be in Atlanta. My questions are: Thanks for the questions. You certainly don't need to wait for AD's Office Hours to ask questions. We just offer the Office Hours as a way to have high bandwidth exchanges. > 1- How can we have IETF MANET and ROLL WGs guided to work together to > advise participants not to overlap concepts related to such WG? On the whole, I believe this already works. Participants are guided by the WG charters and encouraged to stay within a short distance of the charter by the chairs. Cross-review of work is also encouraged where appropriate, but it helps to not have cross-posted discussions - i.e., to limit the discussions to a single mailing list. Many IETF working groups have close or overlapping tasks (for example, the L3VPN working group does work closely related to IDR and MPLS; the CCAMP working group does work related to MPLS, OSPF, and ISIS; etc.). The really important thing is that we (i.e., the participants) don't waste everybody's time by shopping our ideas from one WG to another, and that the chairs don't waste the participants' time by endlessly sending them from one WG to another. Wrt MANET, it is clear where the historic base is, and it is clear that ROLL was set up to examine a similar but significantly different problem space. It makes a lot of sense for the applicability of MANET protocols to be considered in the ROLL problem-space and vice versa. It also makes sense for protocol developers to consider additional scenarios and requirements. But we tend to shy away from attempts to develop "god protocols". In fact, many would argue that each of the MANET and ROLL problem spaces is wide enough to make the development of a "simple" protocol hard so that widening the problem space to encompass both MANET and ROLL would be a challenge. A lot of this discussion was well rehearsed when the ROLL working group was formed. That said, we don't operate an IETF police force that will require people to behave in a particular way. We rely on good sense and a cooperative spirit under guidance of the WG chairs. We do have sanctions for very bad offenders, but these are harsh sanctions and not applied frequently. So the key word from your question is "guidance". I believe that guidance has been offered (repeatedly) by the MANET and ROLL chairs on and off list, and now it up to the participants to work out how to behave. > 2- How can we make any WG within Routing Area to concider the mailing > list as the point of making/taking/suggesting decisions not only > through Face-to-Face meetings? Well, it is clear that decisions are formally made on the mailing lists and not in f2f meetings. However, progressing discussions and making suggestions could and should happen in f2f sessions. F2f is very valuable for the very high-bandwidth and multi-media exchanges. You will often hear a chair take the mod of the room in an f2f meeting and then say "OK, that sounds like consensus. We will take it to the list." But please do not expect every decision about every word in a document to be formally discussed and signed off as the text is developed. That is not how it works. The editors of WG documents are pro-active custodians of text: they are expected to capture text based on WG consensus, but also to advance the work on behalf of the WG. If a new revision of an I-D contains something new, it will be exposed to the mailing list by the editor, visible in the diffs, and often explicitly flagged at the next meeting. If someone disagrees with the changes, they will (of course) speak up on the mailing list and then a discussion can follow. Ultimately, working group last call offers the chance for people to express their content or discontent, but hopefully all issues have been flushed well before that. I think it is also important to observe that a WG would be in a real mess if every discussion had to result in a consensus call from the chairs. The IETF works best when participants drive themselves towards consensus both by making compromises, and by willing to recognise when they are "in the rough" and need to step back. > 3- Do we in IETF concider WG minutes document without consensus of WG? RFC2026 calls for "complete and accurate minutes of meetings", but there is no process laid down for gaining consensus on minutes. Indeed (and of course), the minutes only reflect what was said in the meeting; they do not create WG consensus. So the consensus on the minutes would only ever be at the level of "Yes, this is what was said and the key points have been captured." Since the inclusion of audio streams in the proceedings archive, the minutes have become much more of a management summary. I use them to remind me what was discussed, and if I want the details I usually go to the audio to find out the precise words used. As ADs, we encourage chairs to get draft minutes posted early while the discussions are fresh in everyone's minds. Sometimes this is harder because of snafus with minute takers, vacations, computer failures, work-loads, etc. etc. Anyone who believes the minutes are not accurate or complete can send mail at any time to the WG list or to the chairs direct. They can update the minutes with help from the Secretariat. I don't believe a formal consensus call on the minutes is needed for exactly the reason that the meetings are not formally decision-making. Hope this helps, Adrian From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Fri Oct 19 00:25:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B2121F887E for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:25:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.263 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.264, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u+cB8JZnYg6I for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B7B21F87DC for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:25:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fl11so167876vcb.31 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:25:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=8DX94NArKqwr5JpTk8tDV6IrdpTbctWICljdCBL5mm0=; b=IbYqlvE8eHf/VS0k3eQoRkw/dVCDhfxwyZ9CiOSaYWFaLfEZ/TFDnVJTF6evq3+8KA nlrHyYPbBWPC1ZWonBeEB6dh24VYJ2epvNCSSaweKx5CujzU0yq+KTrM/Oc5m27Ibe2L EeGE/ptkTLPKo4YD/sFJMe39ob8qH+gSJ47C/cXZV7X1q/0SLPrjR5J13cFIMadKd7vA 2Wc6N2gbui/cz18Y+N81Ua0PVS+Yxd1eQeYMf+rWfuoLI5P2i08iwftW5RdxQgRn9VZK 3Jvc+r1QLC0Csk3g4tQhEgoZxiGvEgY5WQtdk3VaHeSVObqHMxgc3aISARV+fPr4dKSu bzqg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.77.101 with SMTP id r5mr369867vdw.25.1350631540569; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:25:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.204.9 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 00:25:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <08d301cdad4b$ebadc9c0$c3095d40$@olddog.co.uk> References: <08d301cdad4b$ebadc9c0$c3095d40$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:25:40 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: AB's three questions [Was: Routing ADs Open Office in Atlanta] From: Abdussalam Baryun To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:25:42 -0000 Thanks alot your explaination and guidance, Best Regards AB ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Please note that my three questions is not to be understood that any chair in ietf didn't do the volunteer job. I just want to understand the practice so I can contribute and know what I should do with experts guidance (i.e. I already read the procedures). I have experience that all chairs delt with me are very good in guidance and doing perfect job, including all ADs. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ On 10/18/12, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > >> I want to start from now to post my questions if possible, because I >> may not be able to be in Atlanta. My questions are: > > Thanks for the questions. You certainly don't need to wait for AD's Office > Hours > to ask questions. We just offer the Office Hours as a way to have high > bandwidth > exchanges. > >> 1- How can we have IETF MANET and ROLL WGs guided to work together to >> advise participants not to overlap concepts related to such WG? > > On the whole, I believe this already works. > Participants are guided by the WG charters and encouraged to stay within a > short > distance of the charter by the chairs. > Cross-review of work is also encouraged where appropriate, but it helps to > not > have cross-posted discussions - i.e., to limit the discussions to a single > mailing list. > > Many IETF working groups have close or overlapping tasks (for example, the > L3VPN > working group does work closely related to IDR and MPLS; the CCAMP working > group > does work related to MPLS, OSPF, and ISIS; etc.). The really important thing > is > that we (i.e., the participants) don't waste everybody's time by shopping > our > ideas from one WG to another, and that the chairs don't waste the > participants' > time by endlessly sending them from one WG to another. > > Wrt MANET, it is clear where the historic base is, and it is clear that ROLL > was > set up to examine a similar but significantly different problem space. It > makes > a lot of sense for the applicability of MANET protocols to be considered in > the > ROLL problem-space and vice versa. It also makes sense for protocol > developers > to consider additional scenarios and requirements. But we tend to shy away > from > attempts to develop "god protocols". In fact, many would argue that each of > the > MANET and ROLL problem spaces is wide enough to make the development of a > "simple" protocol hard so that widening the problem space to encompass both > MANET and ROLL would be a challenge. > > A lot of this discussion was well rehearsed when the ROLL working group was > formed. > > That said, we don't operate an IETF police force that will require people > to > behave in a particular way. We rely on good sense and a cooperative spirit > under > guidance of the WG chairs. We do have sanctions for very bad offenders, but > these are harsh sanctions and not applied frequently. So the key word from > your > question is "guidance". I believe that guidance has been offered > (repeatedly) by > the MANET and ROLL chairs on and off list, and now it up to the participants > to > work out how to behave. > >> 2- How can we make any WG within Routing Area to concider the mailing >> list as the point of making/taking/suggesting decisions not only >> through Face-to-Face meetings? > > Well, it is clear that decisions are formally made on the mailing lists and > not > in f2f meetings. However, progressing discussions and making suggestions > could > and should happen in f2f sessions. F2f is very valuable for the very > high-bandwidth and multi-media exchanges. > > You will often hear a chair take the mod of the room in an f2f meeting and > then > say "OK, that sounds like consensus. We will take it to the list." > > But please do not expect every decision about every word in a document to > be > formally discussed and signed off as the text is developed. That is not how > it > works. The editors of WG documents are pro-active custodians of text: they > are > expected to capture text based on WG consensus, but also to advance the work > on > behalf of the WG. If a new revision of an I-D contains something new, it > will be > exposed to the mailing list by the editor, visible in the diffs, and often > explicitly flagged at the next meeting. If someone disagrees with the > changes, > they will (of course) speak up on the mailing list and then a discussion > can > follow. Ultimately, working group last call offers the chance for people to > express their content or discontent, but hopefully all issues have been > flushed > well before that. > > I think it is also important to observe that a WG would be in a real mess > if > every discussion had to result in a consensus call from the chairs. The > IETF > works best when participants drive themselves towards consensus both by > making > compromises, and by willing to recognise when they are "in the rough" and > need > to step back. > >> 3- Do we in IETF concider WG minutes document without consensus of WG? > > RFC2026 calls for "complete and accurate minutes of meetings", but there is > no > process laid down for gaining consensus on minutes. Indeed (and of course), > the > minutes only reflect what was said in the meeting; they do not create WG > consensus. So the consensus on the minutes would only ever be at the level > of > "Yes, this is what was said and the key points have been captured." > > Since the inclusion of audio streams in the proceedings archive, the > minutes > have become much more of a management summary. I use them to remind me what > was > discussed, and if I want the details I usually go to the audio to find out > the > precise words used. > > As ADs, we encourage chairs to get draft minutes posted early while the > discussions are fresh in everyone's minds. Sometimes this is harder because > of > snafus with minute takers, vacations, computer failures, work-loads, etc. > etc. > > Anyone who believes the minutes are not accurate or complete can send mail > at > any time to the WG list or to the chairs direct. They can update the > minutes > with help from the Secretariat. > > I don't believe a formal consensus call on the minutes is needed for exactly > the > reason that the meetings are not formally decision-making. > > Hope this helps, > Adrian > > From adrian@olddog.co.uk Wed Oct 24 08:23:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BBEC21F869F for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:23:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.47 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.47 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5FPibfYkNksk for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (asmtp5.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F386821F8B71 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9OFN5mo006070 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:23:05 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp5.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q9OFN4F7006056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:23:05 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Routing Area Meeting Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 16:23:03 +0100 Message-ID: <12a101cdb1fb$762c8830$62859890$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac2x+3Moyw/S7vx6SgmCnNjN4S5Myw== Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:23:14 -0000 Hi, Over the last couple of meetings we have managed to drag in a number of presentations on "routing" taking place in other Areas and also management issues related to routing. For Atlanta, however, we seem to have run out of ideas. Anyone got anything they want to see on the Routing Area meeting agenda? Thanks, Adrian per pro Stewart From heinerhummel@aol.com Thu Oct 25 13:01:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7352F21F878B for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:01:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uFnnH6aliw7c for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (imr-ma05.mx.aol.com [64.12.100.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C48D21F8789 for ; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 13:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.138]) by imr-ma05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q9PK1EtC020042; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:01:14 -0400 Received: from core-dqe005b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dqe005.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.162.81]) by mtaomg-da02.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id EDC62E00008D; Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:01:13 -0400 (EDT) References: <12a101cdb1fb$762c8830$62859890$@olddog.co.uk> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, routing-discussion@ietf.org Subject: Re: Routing Area Meeting In-Reply-To: <12a101cdb1fb$762c8830$62859890$@olddog.co.uk> X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: heinerhummel@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CF81029EA2C017_1FD4_C8734_webmail-d014.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: Webmail 37105-STANDARD Received: from 178.27.21.1 by webmail-d014.sysops.aol.com (205.188.181.33) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:01:13 -0400 Message-Id: <8CF81029E96D932-1FD4-35120@webmail-d014.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [178.27.21.1] Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:01:13 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20110426; t=1351195274; bh=rW47VnYA9BMYxoFfm9vtcXykh9SRCmOlUx44hz3S074=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NyMknunNb/iqFiMu6gK9c1bWuiGIy98aAviTZ+w1dQzd/E2zPXj9waOdYeTsVcazt JQI+IuQM/fif6Z0maQiZ3cFcoPOtHMrY03L+KbckGgNleoAlwoirKVozY3joVOqj85 C9b/tPbhqys4mUNIuY1AahF75nujkPwV2Yurm2oo= X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:429985312:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d338a50899a8962d0 X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 20:01:27 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CF81029EA2C017_1FD4_C8734_webmail-d014.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Here are a few ideas for IPv4- unicast, -multicast and -anycast: 1) ipv4-unicast: 1a) : such that it still works after the ipv4 address space is exhausted 1b): successful detour routing, in compliance with 1a), unless there is n= o detour route possible 2) ipv4 multicast: 2a) state-less multicast 2b) multicast whereby the sender is mobile (as well as all receivers), in c= ompliance with 2a) 3) ipv4 anycast: 3a) anycast at all i.e. with JOINs and QUITTs of hosts serving as anycast d= estinations 3b) state-less anycast in compliance with 3a) 3c) anycast with mobile anycast destinations in compliance with 3b) Heiner -----Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----=20 Von: Adrian Farrel An: routing-discussion Verschickt: Mi, 24 Okt 2012 5:23 pm Betreff: Routing Area Meeting Hi, Over the last couple of meetings we have managed to drag in a number of presentations on "routing" taking place in other Areas and also management issues related to routing. For Atlanta, however, we seem to have run out of ideas. Anyone got anything they want to see on the Routing Area meeting agenda? Thanks, Adrian per pro Stewart _______________________________________________ routing-discussion mailing list routing-discussion@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion =20 ----------MB_8CF81029EA2C017_1FD4_C8734_webmail-d014.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Here are a few ideas = for IPv4- unicast, -multicast and -anycast:

1) ipv4-unicast:

1a) : such that it still works after the ipv4 address space is exhaust= ed

1b): successful detour routing, in compliance with 1a), un= less there is no detour route possible

2) ipv4 multicast:

2a) state-less multicast

2b) multicast whereby the sender is mobile (as well as all receivers),= in compliance with 2a)

3) ipv4 anycast:

3a) anycast at all i.e. with JOINs and QUITTs of hosts serving as anyc= ast destinations

3b) state-less anycast in compliance with 3a)

3c) anycast with mobile anycast destinations in compliance with 3b)

Heiner

-----= Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mitteilung-----
Von: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
An: routing-discussion <routing-discussion@ietf.org>
Verschickt: Mi, 24 Okt 2012 5:23 pm
Betreff: Routing Area Meeting

Hi,

Over the last couple of meetings we have managed to drag in a number of
presentations on "routing" taking place in other Areas and also management
issues related to routing.

For Atlanta, however, we seem to have run out of ideas.

Anyone got anything they want to see on the Routing Area meeting agenda?

Thanks,
Adrian
per pro Stewart

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org<=
/a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

----------MB_8CF81029EA2C017_1FD4_C8734_webmail-d014.sysops.aol.com--