Subject: [rohc] FN: we're doing it again...

From: "Finking, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 13:50:44 +0100

Guys, what's going on here? We all spent blood sweat and tears, not to mention large numbers of e-mails getting to a consensus on both these issues. I must admit I'm making the assumption here that Ghyslain agrees with all his own suggestions, but if so we have consensus. Why on earth are we spending more time going over alternative possibilities? Apart from the time spent discussing them, any changes we make are going to make more work. Ghyslain's current suggestions are great in that they require minimal change to the document. Presumably the same applies to Carsten's tool?

I just don't get it - it's not like we're miles ahead of schedule. We need to get this finished. We've got consensus. Let's move on!
 
Raffles
 
PS yes, I have got more funding this week after all =)
_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:26:32 +0200

Lesson to learn: Don't try to judge (enforce) consensus before you actually have it.
 
To me, it seems like todays discussions have actually brought us closer to some kind of consensus on these issues, by starting to understand each other. I might be wrong if you disagree with what has been said today, 
just let us know if that is the case.
 
Speaking only for myself, I know that I might sometimes suggest things that I will later argue against, if input from others makes me change my mind. That's what might happen as a result of open discussions.
 
/L-E

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Finking, Robert
Sent: den 4 oktober 2004 14:51
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [rohc] FN: we're doing it again...

 
Raffles

---

From: "Finking, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:17:51 +0100

Hi L-E,

]Lesson to learn: Don't try to judge (enforce) consensus before you 
]actually have it.

Hmm, OK, point taken - thanks =)

For the record I wasn't trying to judge anything. Although I'm new to all
this stuff I've quickly picked up that at the IETF it's not uncommon for old
discussions to get revisited and re-revisited e.g. by watching Ghyslain and
Zhigang ;-). Since I thought I would have no money this week to continue
making these posts, I just figured it would be good to check if there was a
consensus on what Ghyslain said, so that I didn't end up coming back in a
month's time to find out we hadn't actually made any valid decisions. Also,
it's worth noting that at the time of posting my below mail, we did have
consensus on paper. However we seem to have opened it up again, which,
ironically is what I was trying to avoid.

]To me, it seems like today's discussions have actually brought us closer to

]some kind of consensus on these issues, by starting to understand each 
]other. I might be wrong if you disagree with what has been said today, 
]just let us know if that is the case.

I must admit that I don't quite like the new technical proposals as much as
what we had last week, but I'm not going to barf on them. The thing I
disagree with is carrying on spending time on this unnecessarily. As you may
recall from my mail I sent out before we started any of this, the most
important thing to me is to expedite the whole process. We've been trying
and failing to do that since before Luleå, and we're in danger of continuing
to fail, because we're not focusing on getting this done, we're focusing on
getting it perfect.

]
]Speaking only for myself, I know that I might sometimes suggest things that

]I will later argue against, if input from others makes me change my mind. 
]That's what might happen as a result of open discussions.

That's great! It's nice to know we can be truly objective (a rare thing) =)
But we're miles behind schedule here. The technical issues are secondary;
they're not show-stoppers. We're spending time on minutiae. Even with no
changes, the draft as it stands is fine IMHO. Let's just get on with
finishing the TCP profile. I'm sure the FN issues that come out of that will
dwarf the consideration of whether we use underscores or "import" type
statements for external encoding methods!

Anyway too much of a rant again - sorry. The point is that I'm happy with
pretty much anything as long as we can get a consensus and move on.

Cheers

Raffles

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
Finking, Robert
Sent: den 4 oktober 2004 14:51
To: [email-masked]'
Subject: [rohc] FN: we're doing it again...

Guys, what's going on here? We all spent blood sweat and tears, not to
mention large numbers of e-mails getting to a consensus on both these
issues. I must admit I'm making the assumption here that Ghyslain agrees
with all his own suggestions, but if so we have consensus. Why on earth are
we spending more time going over alternative possibilities? Apart from the
time spent discussing them, any changes we make are going to make more work.
Ghyslain's current suggestions are great in that they require minimal change
to the document. Presumably the same applies to Carsten's tool?

I just don't get it - it's not like we're miles ahead of schedule. We need
to get this finished. We've got consensus. Let's move on!

Raffles

---

From: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:00:13 +0200

Robert,

I do understand your concerns, and I also understand why you tried to get some closure on these issues before leaving. However, I think it is pretty pointless to ask for consensus right after a messaged characterized as "I do not at all agree with you but I give up to get things going again". Thus, I do not think I can agree we have ever had any consensus "on paper". 

Right now, I am not at all worried that we will not progress, as we are really talking to each other and we try to get common understandings. The problems with the FN work have mainly been a result of non-common intentions and goals, technology without actual needs being spelled out, written documentation before mail list consensus, a lack of mail list discussion, etc.

I therefore see the current discussions as something really positive, we will not get ready by avoiding to discuss and resolve disagreements.

/L-E

> Sent: den 4 oktober 2004 16:18
> To: [email-masked]'
> Subject: RE: [rohc] FN: we're doing it again...
> 
> 
> Hi L-E,
>

---

From: "Finking, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:36:08 +0100

L-E,

]I do understand your concerns, and I also understand why you tried to get 
]some closure on these issues before leaving. However, I think it is pretty 
]pointless to ask for consensus right after a messaged characterized as "I
do 
]not at all agree with you but I give up to get things going again". Thus, I

]do not think I can agree we have ever had any consensus "on paper". 

Sorry, to clarify: I wasn't trying to get any closure on the issues. I agree
there was not consensus on the issues (which is why they're being discussed
now). However I agreed with Ghyslain, that despite the lack of consensus on
*the issues* we needed to "get things going again". The consensus we had was
that we should settle for Ghyslain's proposals in order to proceed. The
problem here is that on the one hand, people replied to my mail saying they
were happy with Ghyslain's proposals, and on the other hand carried on
discussing it... because I guess of the not wanting to move on without
having technical consensus.

]
]Right now, I am not at all worried that we will not progress, as we are 
]really talking to each other and we try to get common understandings. The 
]problems with the FN work have mainly been a result of non-common
intentions 
]and goals, technology without actual needs being spelled out, written 
]documentation before mail list consensus, a lack of mail list discussion, 
]etc.

Though the discussion happened off the list, it still happened - I don't
think using the list would have made any difference. We have the same
parties contributing now we're back on the list as we did off the list. The
point of keeping it off the list in the first place, was to prevent us from
polluting the list with stuff that was only of interest to us; at least
until we were close to something publishable.

Consensus has been reached on several issues, but inevitably at some later
point in time the people who consented are not there, and others are, and
they form a new consensus of their own, despite the previous consensus that
was *published on the list*

]
]I therefore see the current discussions as something really positive, we 
]will not get ready by avoiding to discuss and resolve disagreements.

Positive technically yes, just like structures etc. from IETF60, just like a
lot of stuff we came up with at Luleå, but not positive from an expediency
point of view. I'm afraid we'll have to disagree about not getting ready by
avoiding discussions! A phrase that I like a lot is "good enough". For us
now, that means a FN which will successfully facilitate the production of
the TCP profile. Anything beyond that is unnecessary. To give a concrete
example, the annotation comment syntax is down in the noise, so for my money
I'd keep it as it is, just so that all the existing examples in the draft,
the existing fragments of TCP profile, Mark's tools and Carsten's tools
don't need changing.

Still I guess I'm a cheeky newbie who could learn a thing or too. Maybe I
should just keep quiet ;-)

Raffles

---

From: "Finking, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:37:02 +0100

Carsten:
]> PS yes, I have got more funding this week after all =)
]
]Good!
]
]How's Mark? (And the packet formats?)

LOL "Mark and the Packet Formats", sounds like a great name for a band =)

I've heard report that would suggest Mark is alive, and possibly even in this country. I've been to look for him today, but didn't actually manage to find him. Did he send you the last version of the packet formats that he's got? If so, you have a more up to date copy than me =)

Raffles