Re: [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward
Chairs, ADs, I regret this decision. *Whatever* the results of the poll, your text below explicitly suggests a discrimination between voters. Basically, you seem to distinguish between people who are entitled to vote because they have supposedly participated to the stateless specification effort (whatever the flavour) and people who are not entitled to vote because you clearly assume they have not participated to the said specification effort, let alone the discussions. I think this decision is a shame for the IETF precisely because of this discrimination. We all perfectly know how the IETF procedures have been working for many years. And we all perfectly know what kind of side effect the rough consensus motto can sometimes lead to. But I don't think this is a good enough reason to speculate on the degree of participation to the WG effort of the people who have expressed an opinion. I, for one, never sent a comment on either the MAP or the 4rd-U stuff on this list. Yet, I can assure you that I have extensively discussed both approaches with my colleagues internally. Does that make me ineligible to respond to this poll? I certainly don't think so. I don't think anyone of us is entitled to decide who has the right to vote and who hasn't. Your corrected math clearly reflect a strong consensus to (1) standardize one and only one approach and (2) adopt the MAP effort as a softwire WG item. Your decision contradicts the results of this poll. I therefore strongly encourage you to revisit your position and accept the results of this poll. If you stick to this decision, you will not only do any favor to the softwire WG, but also to the whole IETF. Cheers, Christian. -Message d'origine- De : softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Alain Durand Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2012 03:41 À : softwires@ietf.org WG Objet : [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward The chairs and ADs met to look at the results of the consensus call that ended Wednesday and decide the way forward. First, we would like to offer a couple observations on the raw results from the consensus call: - We had a number of people responding more than once, sometime with different email addresses. Having their name and affiliation in the response helped us removed those duplicate/triplicate/... - Number of unique response: 75 - Question 1: 75 yes, 0 No, few responded put both on experimental track - Question 2: 73 MAP 2 4rd-U This does not reflect at all the results we had in the Paris meeting (about 30 MAP and 20 4rd-U): a) It seems that some of the 4rd-U people who did express support for it in Paris when the same question was asked have not participated in this consensus call. b) the number of MAP responses seem to be inflated, we see a disproportionate number of response from some particular organizations. We also see a large number of responses coming from people who have not participated before in the working group. Also, it is apparent that a number of people have joined the mailing list for the sole purpose of expressing support for MAP. None of the above behaviors do any favors for the working group. We do need participation in the official call for consensus from all the active participants of the working group. As we mentioned before, in such calls, silence is consent. Also, the inflated participation in the consensus call from 'new' members that have never participate in the discussion before, creates noise that makes the results harder to read. Furthermore, we have observed that, even during the call, the analysis of both solutions did continue, and missing elements on both sides have been pointed out. We also observed a willingness of various participants to improve those specs to bring them to a level where we could start a working group last call. As a result, we have decided to approve both MAP and 4rd-U as working group work items. As work items, each document can be further refined until the working group reaches consensus about advancing the documents for IETF review. Because of the history of MAP and 4rd-U, we will designate independent teams of volunteer reviewers to advise the working group about the state of the document sets. Each set will be reviewed by an independent team who are not authors of the MAP and 4rd-U documents. Each review team will consist of three members and will determine when its document set is ready for working group last call. If you are interested in volunteering for one of the review teams, please respond directly to the chairs, indicating your preference for which document to review if you have one. The appointment of the review teams will be entirely up to the chairs. Aside from these appointed reviews, the chairs would naturally appreciate any and all reviews provided, regardless of whether the reviewer(s) participate on a review team. When
Re: [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward
Dear all, I personally regret this decision and reject the justifications provided. If you don't want people to contribute and express their opinion, it is easy: make it a close community. If you insist to ignore what expressed the majority of individuals who participated to the poll, may I suggest: we stop all this stateless A+P work. It does not make sense at all to continue work on two parallel efforts having 90% of similarities. Cheers, Med -Message d'origine- De : softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Alain Durand Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2012 03:41 À : softwires@ietf.org WG Objet : [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward The chairs and ADs met to look at the results of the consensus call that ended Wednesday and decide the way forward. First, we would like to offer a couple observations on the raw results from the consensus call: - We had a number of people responding more than once, sometime with different email addresses. Having their name and affiliation in the response helped us removed those duplicate/triplicate/... - Number of unique response: 75 - Question 1: 75 yes, 0 No, few responded put both on experimental track - Question 2: 73 MAP 2 4rd-U This does not reflect at all the results we had in the Paris meeting (about 30 MAP and 20 4rd-U): a) It seems that some of the 4rd-U people who did express support for it in Paris when the same question was asked have not participated in this consensus call. b) the number of MAP responses seem to be inflated, we see a disproportionate number of response from some particular organizations. We also see a large number of responses coming from people who have not participated before in the working group. Also, it is apparent that a number of people have joined the mailing list for the sole purpose of expressing support for MAP. None of the above behaviors do any favors for the working group. We do need participation in the official call for consensus from all the active participants of the working group. As we mentioned before, in such calls, silence is consent. Also, the inflated participation in the consensus call from 'new' members that have never participate in the discussion before, creates noise that makes the results harder to read. Furthermore, we have observed that, even during the call, the analysis of both solutions did continue, and missing elements on both sides have been pointed out. We also observed a willingness of various participants to improve those specs to bring them to a level where we could start a working group last call. As a result, we have decided to approve both MAP and 4rd-U as working group work items. As work items, each document can be further refined until the working group reaches consensus about advancing the documents for IETF review. Because of the history of MAP and 4rd-U, we will designate independent teams of volunteer reviewers to advise the working group about the state of the document sets. Each set will be reviewed by an independent team who are not authors of the MAP and 4rd-U documents. Each review team will consist of three members and will determine when its document set is ready for working group last call. If you are interested in volunteering for one of the review teams, please respond directly to the chairs, indicating your preference for which document to review if you have one. The appointment of the review teams will be entirely up to the chairs. Aside from these appointed reviews, the chairs would naturally appreciate any and all reviews provided, regardless of whether the reviewer(s) participate on a review team. When the document sets are ready for working group last call, the working group will reconsider the question of the publication status: Proposed Standard or Experimental. We will try to consider all document sets for advancement at the same time, but we will not allow a delay in completing one document to hold up the working group indefinitely. - Alain Yong, WG co-chairs - Ralph Biran, ADs ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward
Because of the history of MAP and 4rd-U, we will designate independent teams of volunteer reviewers to advise the working group about the state of the document sets. Each set will be reviewed by an independent team who are not authors of the MAP and 4rd-U documents. Each review team will consist of three members and will determine when its document set is ready for working group last call. If you are interested in volunteering for one of the review teams, please respond directly to the chairs, indicating your preference for which document to review if you have one. The appointment of the review teams will be entirely up to the chairs. Aside from these appointed reviews, the chairs would naturally appreciate any and all reviews provided, regardless of whether the reviewer(s) participate on a review team. Seems like a pending procedural quagmire. Perhaps we would have been better off with the coin toss. - Mark ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward
I'm new to the group, but I made my vote because I have studied both solutions. I was unable to find any running code for 4rd-U that I could test and verify, while I was able to do that with MAP. I voted based on the quote about the IETF from David Clark: We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code. As I was unable to find 4rd-U running code I voted against 4rd-U. I believe that the author of 4rd-U should explore his idea and have running code to prove it works. When the 4rd-U comes to this stage come back to the group. This is similar to what happened with 6rd. If this code already exist, please make it public so it could be verified. Edwin Cordeiro Em 26-04-2012 06:50, Mark Townsley escreveu: Because of the history of MAP and 4rd-U, we will designate independent teams of volunteer reviewers to advise the working group about the state of the document sets. Each set will be reviewed by an independent team who are not authors of the MAP and 4rd-U documents. Each review team will consist of three members and will determine when its document set is ready for working group last call. If you are interested in volunteering for one of the review teams, please respond directly to the chairs, indicating your preference for which document to review if you have one. The appointment of the review teams will be entirely up to the chairs. Aside from these appointed reviews, the chairs would naturally appreciate any and all reviews provided, regardless of whether the reviewer(s) participate on a review team. Seems like a pending procedural quagmire. Perhaps we would have been better off with the coin toss. - Mark ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward
On 4/26/12 11:50 AM, Mark Townsley wrote: Perhaps we would have been better off with the coin toss. +1 bingo. Cheers, Jan P.S: I'll not waste more bits on this topic as it's apparently a waste of bandwidth :) P.P.S: Should we deprecate RFC6346? ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward
Hi Jan, P.P.S: Should we deprecate RFC6346? A+P is in MAP T, MAP E and 4rd-U. I don't understand why you are worried about it? Having said that I for one think that A+P should be restricted to the CPEs. Otherwise you are creating another NAT. Regards, Behcet ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] Sorry for being a noise generator, inflating the results. Re: Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward
If I may, it seems to me that several of these replies miss some important points in the message from the chairs. 1) It became clear during the WG poll that the documents were not complete. This is not a bad thing. We need to finish them. 2) The poll did indicate that there is interest in the documents. 3) Given that the documents are not complete, they can not be sent to the IESG at this time. Until they are complete, a final decision on what status they will be labelled with can not be made. Hence, what can be done is either to adopt the documents as WG documents, or not. Even if the chairs were to state an intended status for the documents upon completion, that would have to be verified when the final content was available. The most important thing actually is the call for reviewers. If you want to see any of the documents adopted by the working group, and worked on, we need folks to step forward as reviewers. Folks who are not the authors. Yours, Joel M. Halpern An observer without a preference on outcomes. PS: I think there is also some confusion about IETF processes. However, I will not belabor the list with a rant on that. I will happily answer off-list questions if it i helpful to individuals. On 4/26/2012 2:14 PM, Antonio M. Moreiras wrote: On 25-04-2012 22:41, Alain Durand wrote: b) the number of MAP responses seem to be inflated, we see a disproportionate number of response from some particular organizations. We also see a large number of responses coming from people who have not participated before in the working group. Also, it is apparent that a number of people have joined the mailing list for the sole purpose of expressing support for MAP. None of the above behaviors do any favors for the working group. We do need participation in the official call for consensus from all the active participants of the working group. As we mentioned before, in such calls, silence is consent. Also, the inflated participation in the consensus call from 'new' members that have never participate in the discussion before, creates noise that makes the results harder to read. I regret so much this decision. I, personaly, and also my team, have been following the work of this IETF WG, and others regarding IPv6, for quite a long time. We are involved with IPv6 dissemination. We do not participate actively here, because we choose to prioritize other tasks. Sadly, the time and other resources are always limited, and we can't contribute in all ways we would like to. I did choose to sign the list with this email address recently solely in order to vote in this matter, because it is important and urgent, and I wanted to express my support to MAP (but, more important than that, to express my support on advancing only one of the options, MAP or 4rd-U), and help the group to make the decision in a timely way. If I had the slightest idea that this kind of behavior could prejudice the vote and decision in any way, as it seems to have done, I wouldn't have voted. I honestly thought the IETF was more open, and that newcomers were more welcome. I am really, really sorry because I didn't know that it was not expected that newcomers in a WG expressed their opnions, and that it would be considered noise, inflating the numbers. Maybe it could be a bit more clear, when the vote was called, that newcomers were not expected to express their opinions, and that only those already discussing the question in the list for some time should participate. I am not criticizing the process in anyway, just stating that I could not understand it correctly before now. Said that, I must add that I've not voted lightly. It was a choose based on a careful reading and analysis of the proposals, of a technical point of view, and on a good understanding of the current state of the IPv6 implementation, and current planning, in the local Internet market of the country I live on, including local ISPs and local equipment manufacturers. I apologize for trying to contribute, helping the group to make what I considered a very needed choose, based on my limited experience, and ending up being just a noise generator, inflating the numbers. I am feeling really bad about that. Anyway, seeing the 75 x 0 votes to the 1st question being ignored, and a decision that lead us to more indefinition regarding a usable stateless transition technique based on A+P is very, very, disappointing. It seems to me that with this new way forward we will loose the timing. We will end up with an optimal and very elegant solution that will not be used by anyone. Sadly, it seems to be better to forget the whole idea, and put our efforts elsewhere. Antonio M. Moreiras. ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org
Re: [Softwires] Sorry for being a noise generator, inflating the results. Re: Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward
the problems here are: 1. a lot of people were hurt by the chairs, IMHO, disparaging language. wording like inflate generate noise is unfair and impolite. 2. it has been well known that documents were not complete. it was not needed to make a poll to indicate it. they are not complete != they are not mature at *same* level. 3. call for reviewer, just like the previously call for poll, sounds to me another political trick of the chair. logically, independent vs. we will designate are contradictory. if the majority poll failed to indicate consensus, how the minority reviews can? - maoke 2012/4/27 Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com If I may, it seems to me that several of these replies miss some important points in the message from the chairs. 1) It became clear during the WG poll that the documents were not complete. This is not a bad thing. We need to finish them. 2) The poll did indicate that there is interest in the documents. 3) Given that the documents are not complete, they can not be sent to the IESG at this time. Until they are complete, a final decision on what status they will be labelled with can not be made. Hence, what can be done is either to adopt the documents as WG documents, or not. Even if the chairs were to state an intended status for the documents upon completion, that would have to be verified when the final content was available. The most important thing actually is the call for reviewers. If you want to see any of the documents adopted by the working group, and worked on, we need folks to step forward as reviewers. Folks who are not the authors. Yours, Joel M. Halpern An observer without a preference on outcomes. PS: I think there is also some confusion about IETF processes. However, I will not belabor the list with a rant on that. I will happily answer off-list questions if it i helpful to individuals. On 4/26/2012 2:14 PM, Antonio M. Moreiras wrote: On 25-04-2012 22:41, Alain Durand wrote: b) the number of MAP responses seem to be inflated, we see a disproportionate number of response from some particular organizations. We also see a large number of responses coming from people who have not participated before in the working group. Also, it is apparent that a number of people have joined the mailing list for the sole purpose of expressing support for MAP. None of the above behaviors do any favors for the working group. We do need participation in the official call for consensus from all the active participants of the working group. As we mentioned before, in such calls, silence is consent. Also, the inflated participation in the consensus call from 'new' members that have never participate in the discussion before, creates noise that makes the results harder to read. I regret so much this decision. I, personaly, and also my team, have been following the work of this IETF WG, and others regarding IPv6, for quite a long time. We are involved with IPv6 dissemination. We do not participate actively here, because we choose to prioritize other tasks. Sadly, the time and other resources are always limited, and we can't contribute in all ways we would like to. I did choose to sign the list with this email address recently solely in order to vote in this matter, because it is important and urgent, and I wanted to express my support to MAP (but, more important than that, to express my support on advancing only one of the options, MAP or 4rd-U), and help the group to make the decision in a timely way. If I had the slightest idea that this kind of behavior could prejudice the vote and decision in any way, as it seems to have done, I wouldn't have voted. I honestly thought the IETF was more open, and that newcomers were more welcome. I am really, really sorry because I didn't know that it was not expected that newcomers in a WG expressed their opnions, and that it would be considered noise, inflating the numbers. Maybe it could be a bit more clear, when the vote was called, that newcomers were not expected to express their opinions, and that only those already discussing the question in the list for some time should participate. I am not criticizing the process in anyway, just stating that I could not understand it correctly before now. Said that, I must add that I've not voted lightly. It was a choose based on a careful reading and analysis of the proposals, of a technical point of view, and on a good understanding of the current state of the IPv6 implementation, and current planning, in the local Internet market of the country I live on, including local ISPs and local equipment manufacturers. I apologize for trying to contribute, helping the group to make what I considered a very needed choose, based on my limited experience, and ending up being just a noise generator, inflating the numbers. I am feeling really bad about that. Anyway, seeing the 75 x 0 votes to the 1st question being ignored,
