Le 29/10/2014 16:03, Brian Haberman a écrit :
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.
In a sense yes, I agree.
In another sense, in my experience, groups of people getting together to
write drafts are not mandated by anyone other than themselves.
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?
Yes, no, it's not that.
When I said let's hope for the best was hoping to see results with wide
support behind.
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?
I am happy you ask, thanks.
In general yes, viewer timezone should be displayed, provided one logs
in. Without logging in the timezone deduced out of the querying IP
address is not reliable. Logging in requires additional burden I am not
ready to take in this context (find that login button among huge ads).
Some employers forbid the use of doodle for obvious privacy reasons
(publicly available accurate knoweledge of arbitrary people busy times
is a bit risky).
Yes - polling a group of people on their availability can happen by
email: state the date of audioconf, receive complains, propose another.
It's an itterative approach that puts the burden on the organizer
rather than the participants - it's her or him who must collect and
understand oppinions.
Yes - state a periodic audioconf, precisely same date. Joins who can.
These methods may scale to a wider audience.
Alex
Regards,
Brian
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
