Comments inline:
On 11/2/12 12:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:
This group is a bit special in a sense that many of the members are
new to ietf and they are coming from different backgrounds, eg ieee,
or the industry involved with white spaces, etc.
I would not be surprised finding out that many people on this mailing
list believed that the use cases and requirements document was
approved and it was a done deal, as soon as they saw I forwarded it to
the iesg with publication requested action.
People may not know that there is the concept of the AD in IETF, that
ADs usually/always have comments and can send back the documents to
the wg, and the wg is supposed to address those comments, etc.
This is not to say that we do not want to go by the rules, but people
sometimes need more explanation.
Absolutely understood. I certainly did not intend my message to be in
anyway interpreted as saying that the WG is doing something wrong with
regard to my comments; indeed, that part was solely a push to say, "If
the WG wishes to discuss these comments, we should start that discussion
on the list." More importantly, as you say:
I sent the document to iesg on Aug31st, you came back to the list with
your comments 2 months later...
Yes, for this again I must sincerely apologize. Far beyond my average
for responding to requests to publish, and this again is why I did not
wish to express anything wrong with the WG not discussing these
comments: I cannot expect that I will be so late in providing my
comments and then the WG turn around and start discussing within 2
weeks. So again, I am not worried about that.
...without specifying that these are the AD comments and the wg is
requested to address them, otherwise the publication process cannot
continue. People might have thought these are the comments from an
outsider, why to address them.
Ah, yes, I should explain more: I need to be prepared to bring this
document to the IETF list for Last Call as well as bringing to the IESG
for IESG Evaluation. In its current form, I am afraid I will get large
pushback from each of those bodies, so I think the WG should consider
making some changes. That said, if the WG can give me the ammunition I
need to defend the document in its current form, that will be OK as
well. But either way, we do need to work through my comments.
And many people interested in that document moved forward, the editors
were let go from their employer, etc, so it is difficult to get people
re-involved.
Yes, that is going to be tricky. We'll see what we can figure out.
This might be the reasons why you did not get feedback to your
comments. And this is why I reserved a bit of time in our F2F for this.
Completely understood.
Some background info on how did we end up with those use cases in the
document:
There were people coming from different SDOs, like 802.11, 802.22, and
some others, with their use cases; which from system functionality
point of view differ, but the requirements to the protocol between the
master and the db are the same. We had this discussion in the group
and people said this document should document the use cases for white
space usage, even though they result in the same reqs for the
protocol. By not including some of the use case, some people felt that
we want to leave that specific technology out. Anyway, I wanted to see
if people are ok now to remove/merge some of the use cases to address
your comment. That was another reason I put it on the agenda.
Yes, I understand not wanting to leave things out. The idea of "merging"
some of the use cases together I think would be a nice way forward. We
should (as a group) discuss that.
Finally, since we got a 2.5h slot and some documents I expected did
not come, we'll have time left for other business, that is why the
last doc showed up on the agenda.
Hope this answers your issues.
It more than answers my issues regarding my AD comments on the
usecases-rqmts document. Of course, it does not address my other
comments regarding the agenda.
Thanks for your reply.
pr
*From:* ext Pete Resnick [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Thursday, November 01, 2012 4:06 PM
*To:* Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/SiliconValley)
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [paws] agenda uploaded
On 10/31/12 4:20 PM, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-paws
I have a few issues with this, at least as the final agenda. That
agenda says:
PAWS working group meeting - Atlanta (IETF85)
Thursday - November 8th @ 9am
=========================================
Administrivia (5 min)
Blue sheets, minutes taker, jabber
Note Well
Agenda bashing
Sure, the above is fine.
WG doc status (20 min)
No, this should not be done. We have all read the docs. If the status
needs to be summarized, post a message to the mailing list. There is
no need to waste time in the session doing this. Please, let's not
have this on the agenda.
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-vchen-paws-protocol-00.txt (Vince, 60min)
This is fine, but I expect the author and the chairs to have a list of
issues in the document that *can not* be resolved on the list. I do
not have a problem with compiling that issues list week and not
finalizing it until the day of (I understand that we all have busy
schedules), but please try to collect these issues together on the
mailing list so if people want to talk about any particular issues
that are not otherwise noted, they will be able to identify them.
time permitting: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wu-paws-secutity-00.txt
(Yang, 20 min)
I have not seen serious discussion of this document on the list. What
is the purpose of this agenda item?
Finally, the only feedback I got to my review of the usecases-rqmnts
document was from Peter Stanforth, but haven't heard anything further.
If folks aren't yet prepared to discuss this at the f2f, I will
understand. (My review did come in quite late.) But if people do want
to discuss it, you should post to the list so that the chairs know
what you wish to discuss. (I don't expect this to be added to the
agenda if there isn't more discussion on the list.)
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
<http://www.qualcomm.com/%7Epresnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
paws mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
