Subject: RE: How Design Teams Work(was: Re: [Seamoby] updated dyCARD draft)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:55:17 -0500

Hi Bob,

thanks for the clear message. As one of the dyHard team members (I too believe that
this reference was totally out of place for a WG chair as a reference to a valid proposal 
solving an existing SEAMOBY problem), I see the very same problems when it comes to the willingness 
of understanding dyCard. While we keep turning around a scope-id design that is based on "properly 
configured"-like arguments (and I don't see an objection of the WG chair on this), we have to even 
point to sections of the dyCard draft simply because the draft has not been read well, e.g., the 
site-local handling of dyCard. This just makes the normal process so difficult. 

However, I do appreciate your clarification that the DT draft is supposed to be a suggestion only and
that we should start discussing how to get the best out of both approaches into a WG document. Even
though I cannot talk for every dyCard team member, I do believe that this is definitely our intention.

Thanks,

Dirk

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Robert Chalmers [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 3:17 AM
>To: James Kempf
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: How Design Teams Work(was: Re: [Seamoby] updated dyCARD
>draft)
>
>
>James,
>
>> I think you and perhaps others in the WG may have some misunderstands
>>  about the nature of IETF Design Teams.
>> 
>I don't think so. I do feel, however, that in reality design teams end
>up wielding more power than is intended. It seems like this basic
>argument should have taken place before the design team was 
>ever formed.
>
>> The product of the Design Team is only a suggestion and it can be 
>> amended by the Working Group. Thus, if it turns out that the DT draft
>>  has "gaping holes" (and I would be the last one to suggest that it 
>> is a finished product), they must be filled. If it turns out that 
>> Dycard has some good ideas to fill them, and the WG agrees, then 
>> those ideas will be used. I believe the discussion in the last couple
>>  weeks has identified a couple holes in the DT draft, and I believe 
>> there have been some reasonable suggestions from the Dycard team to 
>> fill them. We need to consider them.
>> 
>The point I was trying to make had more to do with your recent comments
>concerning the fact that dyCARD needs to be explained to the WG. Is the
>DT draft somehow crystal clear? The dyCARD draft is pretty 
>explicit, but
>there are bound to be omissions and/or implicit
>assumptions that are not explained well enough (e.g., rate limiting). I
>just want to make sure that everything is spelled out so that its
>"understandable" to the WG, so that the concepts aren't disregarded
>simply because a detail has not been fully addressed in writing.
>
>> Of course, if the intent of the Dycard team in posting the draft was
>>  that the Dycard design was a "take it or leave it" proposition, then
>>  I'm afraid that is not how IETF WGs function. Even if the original 
>> base WG draft is an individual contribution,  it is often amended and
>>  ultimately may look nothing like the original design (in fact, the 
>> original designers may get sick of working on it and leave the 
>> working group after a couple years).
>> 
>Absolutely not. But it does seem that every detail of dyCARD has to be
>addressed before the general concept is given due consideration by the
>design team. And I really don't feel that the server-based approach has
>been faced with the same restrictions. That's just my impression of the
>way the argument has progressed over the last week or so.
>
>Please don't take this as some outraged rant. It's just a 
>little annoyed
>rant :0) Your comment just struck me as odd, not to mention the dyHard
>references. I'm just looking for a fair consideration of both general
>techniques.
>
>enjoy,
>bob
>
>-- 
>/****************************************************************
>
>  Robert Chalmers
>  UCSB Computer Science Doctoral Candidate
>  Network and Multimedia Systems Lab (NMSL)
>
>  "My heart is in the code, but my soul lies in the process"
>
>  | [email-masked] || http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~robertc/ |
>
>*****************************************************************/
>
>_______________________________________________
>Seamoby mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
>
_______________________________________________
Seamoby mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:55:17 -0500

Hi Bob,

Thanks,

Dirk