Subject: RE: Weak turnout : was-> A proposal for moving ahead on BC models

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:25:13 +0100

I would contend that if we onlu have 9 reactions out of 1100
or so WG subscribers/members that there is NO WG consensus 
to work on this topic.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Boyle [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: maandag 20 januari 2003 15:45
> To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Weak turnout : was-> A proposal for moving ahead on BC models
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully for other calls we can get better turnout than 9 
> members out of 
> 1100.
> 
> 
> On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS wrote:
> 
> > 1. my count is 6 to 3.
> > 2. a majority, yes, but a thin margin and small sample on 
> which to base this decision...
> > 
> > Jerry
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jim Boyle [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 10:21 PM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: A proposal for moving ahead on BC models (conclusion?)
> > 
> > For the record, I think it best to specify a default model.
> > 
> > However, assuming Sanjay's second vote masks his first, and 
> including my 
> > vote above, that would leave us with 6 folks who think we 
> should pull the 
> > requirement for a default, specified model, and 2 who think 
> we should keep 
> > it.  That gives us a voter turn-out on our list of less than 1% ;-(
> > 
> > So we'll update the requirements document (currently with 
> IESG) to reflect 
> > no need for a required default BC model.
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > 
> 
>

---

From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:22:40 -0000

Bert,

>> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>> Sent: 21 January 2003 21:25
>> To: Jim Boyle; Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
>> Cc: [email-masked]
>> Subject: RE: Weak turnout : was-> A proposal for moving 
>> ahead on BC models
>> 
>> 

What do you mean by ... "no concensus to work on this topic"???

There may be some confusion here. The topic that generated "9 reactions"
was not about whether we should work on BC models. We have been working
on BC models for a while now. It is part of the work on DSTE which
appears on the TEWG charter. BC Models has been, by far, the single item
generating the most dicussion on the TEWG list. It has been, by far, the
single item generating the most discussion at the TEWG meeting itself
(TEWG minutes say "Lots of discussion on this"). These discussions were
not about whether we needed to work on it, but were actually about
comparing/progressing them.
Based on this, I would contend that there is strong concensus to work on
the topic of BC models. 
Are we in line on this?

The specific item that triggered the "9 reactions" related purely to one
particular aspect of how to move ahead on these models: specifically how
the two models we specified should actually be referenced (ie should
they be both default models, one default & one optional and then which
is which, should they go for Informational, Standards track). This is
not necessarily a topic of most passionate debate in a technical
communitee. 

Considering that:
	- this had been discussed extensively at the Atlanta meeting
	- it has been discussed extensively on the list
	- everybody had ample opportunity/time to comment
	- this discussion item only relates to how the models would be
referenced (default/optional)
do we agree this item is suitably closed and we can move ahead on
updating the corresponding refences in the various document (which is
pretty much the last thing holding those)?

Thanks

Francois

PS: I am also wondering if we wouldn't have had a few more reactions,
had we issued a slightly more formal call for vote on that topic with a
deadline and a fixed set of options to choose from which reflected the
final part of the discussion we had on the list. But that's beside the
point.

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:14:32 -0500

How has this discussion gone down the road of
being a discussion of consensus or not?  There has been
lots and lots of discussion on this topic, it is part of
the charter, and has been discussed at numerous
TE WG meetings over the past few years.

         --Tom

> > > no need for a required default BC model.

"The difficult, we do immediately.  The impossible takes a little longer." 
-- Air Force Motto

http://www.mkp.com/books_catalog/catalog.asp?ISBN=1-55860-751-X

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:10:39 -0500

At 04:47 PM 1/22/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>Maybe it is just your (stupid) AD who does not understand
>how it is possible that these days we seem to only be
>able to get VERY FEW people to speak up (pro or against
>or even declaring a don't care) when WG chairs ask for
>opinions to try and gauge consensus. How are they
>expected to read if teh WG indeed has consensus on anything?
>How do they know that the majority of the WG members have
>even read (parts of) an I-D that they want to pass to their
>ADs for consideration as an RFC.
>
>I can accept if there are only a small set of people that do
>the extual writing and word-smitting, but I would hope that
>many people are willing to read, try to understand, and to
>then give a yes, no, don't case answer when asked.
>
>Thanks,
>Bert

         Point taken. I agree that there is no question that
folks need to jump in more.  The point I was making is that
people have discussed these documents quite a bit, at
least in the past, so the current apathy is not IMHO an
indication of lack of support for the documents.

         --Tom

> > From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: woensdag 22 januari 2003 15:15
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: Weak turnout : was-> A proposal for moving ahead on BC
> > models
> >
> >
> >

---

From: ogino <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:33:17 +0900

Dear TEWGers:

I read it and now I see no problems or objections through the discussion on 
the TEWG mailing list.

Best regards,

Nagao Ogino

At 00:56 03/01/23 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>Thank you very much Vijay. That was/is exactly what I worry about.
>If not enough people (and 10 is the absolute minumum, but having seen
>the attendence of TWEG sessions, I'd expect 25 or more) can speak up
>to state one of:
>
>  - I read it and I am positive, it is good stuff
>  - I read it and I see no problems or objections
>  - I read it but I cannot determine if it is bad, but I can see that
>    what has been discussed in the WG is indeed in the document
>  - I read it and I have these nits/objections...
>  - I did not read it cause this is not relevant to my xxx job/work/function
>  - I did not read it cause I think this is nonsense
>
>Then I get the feeling that we're just allowing a small group of
>people push their petty-project through the process. That seems NOT
>good to me. We need serious WG participation in reading and commenting
>in one of these forums above, before we can declare that we have WG
>consensus on a document to be presented to IESG for approval as RFC
>(in whatever form).
>
>Bert

******************************
Nagao Ogino, Dr. Eng.
KDDI R & D Laboratories Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara, Kamifukuoka-shi,
Saitama 356-8502 Japan
TEL   +81 49 278 7860
FAX   +81 49 278 7516
E-mail   [email-masked]
******************************

---

From: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 09:51:46 -0000

Bert,

I'd like to repeat the point I made Yesterday. The "Weak turnout" DID
NOT relate to the question of wether we should go ahead with BC Models
or not (or whether we should go ahead with DS-TE or not). The "Weak
turnout" DID relate to just one of the many incremental steps that one
makes along the way, specifically : which of the two models should be
default and which should be optional (which is not the most exciting
decision we ever had to make).
For such a decision, I'd say a turnout of 9 is quite usual (even if far
from ideal) as compared to other turnout for that sort of incremental
decisions in IETF.

So, I think we are now clear that the refered "Weak Turnout" is NOT a
reflection of interest in BC models (or of DSTE in general) but probably
a reflection of the fact that it is hard for all of us to closely follow
every incremental steps and sometimes difficult to get excited about
whether something is refered to as Default or as Optional.

Still, I understand your valid concern for making sure that the WGs are
working on something useful. 
With respect to DSTE, this is something we've obviously debated in the
TEWG, BEFORE starting the work on DSTE. It was kind of a "hot topic".
For memory, here's (my recollection of) what we concluded:
	- while this is not expected to apply to the majority of
networks, there is a sufficient base of operators interested in the
technology and wanting to have it standardised. Thus, the corresponding
item of work was incorporated in the TEWG charter.
	- a DSTE-reqts document was to be produced to clarify (i) what
these operators want to do and (ii) if/why existing mechanisms are not
sufficient
	- if existing mechanisms are not sufficient, develop necessary
extensions.
This is what we have been doing over the last two years.

With respect to level of interest in DSTE, you may have noticed that
this topic amounted to the majority of the exchanges on the TEWG list
and of the discussions at TEWG meetings. Without doing the actual name
count, I'd guess that more than 25 people have been involved authoring
I-Ds, contributing or making detailed comments about DS-TE. This
includes major SPs.
For what it is worth, there are also implementations of this technology
today (which don't interwork for lack of standards).

There is no dispute that this technology is of no applicability to
some/many environments. And this explains why this question of "should
we really be working on DSTE" comes up occasionaly.
But at the same time, it is of applicability to other environments and
justifies the corresponding work. 
Having a "Weak turnout" on how to reference model_A vs model_B, does not
seem to be in contradiction with that. Having a number of SPs confirming
DSTE is not applicable to their environments does not seem to contradict
that either.

Cheers

Francois

---

From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:06:02 -0500

Bert,

> If not enough people (and 10 is the absolute minimum, but having seen
> the attendance of TEWG sessions, I'd expect 25 or more) can speak up
> to state one of:
> 

Can you clarify if you're asking for us to vote/comment on something, and if so, what?

The 'weak turnout' comments were in regard to the BC model references, and I think Francois explained that there has been much discussion of that topic along the way.  As you might recall, at least 30-40 people 'voted' on this issue at the Atlanta meeting.  Why there were few comments in the last iteration on this discussion is unclear.
 
Are you perhaps asking us to reaffirm interest in DSTE, and if so, why?  

I believe the 'weak turnout' discussion may have gotten a bit confused between a BC model reference discussion and DSTE requirements updates in response to IESG comments.  Many people have commented on the DSTE requirements draft, clearly many have read it several times.  The requirements draft has just been through IESG review, and that's what is being discussed, right?  There are various changes that Francois seems to have resolved with you.  My assumption is that Francois and Wai Sum will now make the proposed changes, and re-submit the DSTE requirements draft to the IESG, correct?

Please clarify if you are asking for TEWG members to comment on anything further.

Thanks,
Jerry

---

From: "Siva Sivabalan (msiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:36:33 -0500

I have followed DS-TE requirements and protocol development very closely, and
feel that "it is good stuff" and should be moving on.

Thanks,

Siva

At 11:06 AM 1/24/2003 -0500, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS wrote:
>The 'weak turnout' comments were in regard to the BC model references, and 
>I think Francois explained that there has been much discussion of that 
>topic along the way.  As you might recall, at least 30-40 people 'voted' 
>on this issue at the Atlanta meeting.  Why there were few comments in the 
>last iteration on this discussion is unclear.
>
>I believe the 'weak turnout' discussion may have gotten a bit confused 
>between a BC model reference discussion and DSTE requirements updates in 
>response to IESG comments.  Many people have commented on the DSTE 
>requirements draft, clearly many have read it several times.  The 
>requirements draft has just been through IESG review, and that's what is 
>being discussed, right?  There are various changes that Francois seems to 
>have resolved with you.  My assumption is that Francois and Wai Sum will 
>now make the proposed changes, and re-submit the DSTE requirements draft 
>to the IESG, correct?
>

---

From: raymond zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 12:25:01 -0800

Hi,

I've discussed quite a bit with Francois on this draft in many occasions 
and clarified my understanding of draft in which we have a key interest to 
deploy such a solution over our global network.  I thought there were a lot 
of discussions took place at Atlanta meeting as well.  No objections and 
recommend that we move forward with this...

Regards,
Raymond

At 12:56 AM 1/23/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>Vijay writes:
>
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> >
> > While I can't speak for others, I tend to only read on issues
> > I feel are relevant to my day job because of job load.
> > Some of the proposals put forward are a waste of time
> > (for my network requirements),  ergo, I do not bother reading
> > or commenting on them.  Others may be in the same boat.
> >
> > In this case, silence does NOT mean consent.
> >
> > /vijay