I want to ask a question (or two) on this thread...
On 10/29/14 10:56 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Jouni, I reply here, but I will write separate emails. > > Le 24/10/2014 19:51, Jouni a écrit : >> >> Ok.. once more. >> >> On Oct 24, 2014, at 7:46 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> >>> Le 24/10/2014 18:17, Brian Haberman a écrit : >>>> Alex (and others), >>>> >>>> On 10/24/14 11:00 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >>>>> But under no circumstances should they become unaccountable >>>>> with respect to the WG at large. >>>> >>>> Please (re-)read what I posted about these teams a little while >>>> ago. >>>> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmm/current/msg01627.html >>> >>> Thank you for the pointer, I've read and re-read it at the time. >> >> Good. >> >>> It increased my confidence to re-think again the same thing: we >>> dont know whether these are Design Teams RFC2418, or something >>> else. >> >> Does it matter? We have 4 chartered work items. Chairs decided to >> delegate the work and called for volunteers to take a lead for >> running facilitator duties on each work item. If you want to call >> them design teams, you are free to do so. Chairs decided to call >> them as working team since construction of those is less formal than >> typically with design teams. > > Jouni - there are some particular aspects in which these teams work. > > There are no emails to look at: everything seems to be happening on the > phone? Are the audiologs available? How are these work teams any different than a group of people getting together to write a draft? You don't get the level of information you are asking for above for individual drafts. > > Audioconferences: I tried to participate to a doodle but the hours are > not clear about the time region. > > It looks like a change in the traditional way work is being done here. > >>> I dont know what to expect as output. >> >> Maybe re-re-read the pointed mails? "The working teams, if they so >> manage, will produce the solution I-D(s). These documents will be >> equivalent to any individual produced I-D, though." >> >> I personally hope, in a chair role, that working teams will produce >> solution I-Ds with a wide support behind each of them. > > Let's hope for the best. Do you not believe the chairs' and AD's comments that drafts created by these work teams will be treated like all other individual submissions? > > >>> I dont know what does this mean to the future of Mobile IP? >> >> To be seen. Is that an issue? DMM WG still has the maintenance role >> of MIP. > > I will reply separately about this but for now I can say that I am a bit > surprised by your statement. > >> The charter allows us to abandon MIP as a DMM solution if the WG so >> decides or the WG can decide to build everything on top of MIP. You >> are free to steer the public opinion & solution space by >> contributing. The whole process is contribution driven. > > Ok. > >>> Are the 3 teams going to produce a competitor to Mobile IP? Is >>> Mobile IP becoming Historic? >> >> I have no idea. Why not joining to some of those working team calls >> or read the call minutes and find out? > > To join I need to use the right tools and Doodle in particular is not > very appropriate (what time zone is that?). Doodle polls generally present time in the viewer's timezone. If not, contact the person who posted the poll and ask them to verify the poll configuration. Do you have a better tool in mind for polling a group of people on their availability? Regards, Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
