Subject: RE: [Mipshop] ES and CS within the MIPSHOP charter

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:44:16 -0400

Hi Gabriel, 

I am not sure if selection of winner and looser is a good idea here. I
do not know which past history you are referring to you. Are your
referring to 
SeaMoby WG. If yes, then I would like to cite example of IP Paging. IP
paging work was killed even though it went through proper evaluation.
IMHO, I think it is always better idea to converge. 

Regards,
Ajoy 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of gabriel montenegro
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:27 AM
To: Petrescu Alexandru-AAP021; James Kempf
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] ES and CS within the MIPSHOP charter

It seems to me like in this particular case, and given the past history,
we'd be better off *not* trying to converge and just doing an
evaluation,
declare one winner, and be done with it. I note that in addition to the
other examples, MIDCOM also did this. I've actually been thinking that
this is perhaps another item to add, but I'd rather do a quick recharter
just for the evaluation draft when (and if) it does appear to be 
necessary. 

Also, Alex you mention that having at least two interoperable
implementations
is a pre-requisite before sending anything to the IESG. Someone on this
list is
bound to have the facts at hand, but I was under the impression that
whereas that's
true of the routing area, it is not necessarily true in the INT area. Of
course,
it's good to have. Now, to progress to Draft standard, it is a
requirement (rfc1264).

-gabriel

--- Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:

> James Kempf wrote:
> > Alex,
> > 
> > CAPWAP did, in fact, pick winners and losers. Sometimes, this is 
> > unavoidable, especially when the various proposals involve very 
> > different architectural approaches. This was partially the case in 
> > CAPWAP.
> 
> James, thanks for pointing to that, and for the description - good to
> know.  So I went on and skimmed through draft-ietf-capwap-eval-00.txt.
> It's interesting to see the four Member Statements in the Evaluation
> Team similar declarations of intent of the IEEE/ACM Candidates I
receive
> for voting.  Where's 'rough consensus'?
> 
> Then I checked the IESG Queue for CAPWAP.  Only two INFORMATIONAL
RFCs.
>  And a set of personal I-Ds submitted with no intended status and not
> assigned to any shepherding AD.  It's true that things may change in
the
> near future, since the 'winner/looser' decision is relatively recent.
> 
> But I am wondering whether 'Evaluation Team' seemingly used by CAPWAP
is
> a recommended practice.  RFC 2418 'IETF Working Group Guidelines and
> Procedures' recommends 'Design Teams' not 'Evaluation Teams'.
> 
> Further browsing RFCs I found that 'Evaluation Teams' were used
> for selecting other protocols too, e.g. RFC3127 on AAA and 3955 on
> IPFIX.  RFC3127 recommended Diameter for AAA (against SNMP, Radius++
and
> COPS).  Diameter is a PS RFC.  All three others are PS RFCs too, and
> being updated for other than AAA purposes.
> 
> RFC3955 on IPFIX recommended NetFlow against Diameter (and others).
> There's no IPFIX RFC PS yet.  The IESG Queue indicates two IPFIX
> INFORMATIONAL RFCs and a protocol draft version 19, presumably based
on
> NetFlow, but not assigned yet.  There's however a Cisco INFORMATIONAL
> RFC on NetFlow.
> 
> > Personally, I am very much in favor of design teams and
collaborative
> >  work when there are competing proposals, since this seems to me to
> > be more in the spirit of IETF, and I've had most success with that
in
> > the past.
> 
> >From the standpoint of IETF I think DTs are probably more successful
at
> converging that ETs are.
> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:40:34 -0700 (PDT)

by past history i'm referring to the endless exchanges between CARD, FMIP's provision 
for info exchange, NED, 802.21, etc (any others?).

Judging from past history of those exchanges, I do not at all expect any convergence to
occur. I do not wish for more endless exchanges in MIPSHOP, so I'd rather
try something more structured.

-gabriel