Subject: Agenda for Vienna

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 17:03:52 +0200

Ok, so me, Sean and Randy have been discussing a possible agenda for 
Vienna. We tried to incorporate as much of the views as possible. Our 
suggestion is as follows :

1. We schedule two sessions.

2. The first session is early in the week, and have one topic. The 
proposals that have then been made formally to the IETF will each get 
around five minutes. Each presenter will be a member of a "panel". The 
working-group and the other presenters are allowed to ask questions on 
the proposals and try and better understand the proposals.

3. The second session will be scheduled later in the week. This will 
concentrate on the two main proposals that are currently being worked 
on. Those being loc/id which seems to be the main one, and host based 
solutions. This session would be started off with an overview of the 
status on this, and perhaps a summary of the earlier session.

So to elaborate a bit. The first session is not meant to be a "survivor 
wins" session; and that will put some work on the chairs. It's 
intention is to give a clearer picture of the proposals. The main 
reason for the first session would be to allow discussions around the 
proposals in the hallways, leading up to the next session (so we will 
try and have a few days in between). The first session is also not mean 
to be q "qualifying" session for the second one. To me (and from what I 
read on the list - most others) it is very clear that there is only two 
real solutions being worked on at the moment. I also want to point out 
that the WG sessions are not there for a full presentation of the 
proposals - You are supposed to read the drafts :-) ; which means that 
you need to submit the drafts. As for members of the panel, I would 
personally not want to see several similar proposals being presented, 
but there aren't that many out there anyway so this should not be an 
issue.

The second session is meant to be an opportunity to dig more into what 
we think are required of each of the solutions; what the issues are; 
ways forward. As has been said a number of times on this list by Vienna 
we need to have a lot of basic issues sorted out by Vienna.

As I see it at the moment I would schedule 1h for the first session and 
2h for the second one.

Last, I guess one of the questions will be "why the first session?". 
The intent is only that a better understanding of other proposals will 
help us with more ideas. I don't see the main track changing unless all 
of a sudden a large part of the working group change their minds.

I will leave this a few days for comments and then go ahead and make 
the request to the secretariat. We would like to do this as quick as 
possible though. And I hope that there isn't to many issues with this 
proposal.

Best regards,

- kurtis -

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 17:01:31 -0400

Kurtis, I think that this is an excellent way to go. Thank you 
kindly for the cat herding.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 06:49:07 +0859 ()

Kurt;

> 1. We schedule two sessions.

Why its not three 2H sessions? Have you tried?

> around five minutes. Each presenter will be a member of a "panel".

Formally? OK. When can I see formal call for proposals?

Note that people, including chairs, insisting on a requirement draft
have been deprecating to discuss specific proposals.

> on.

Hugh?

Two?

> Those being loc/id which seems to be the main one, and host based 
> solutions.

Host based loc/id is a single class of many solutions including LIN6.

> it is very clear that there is only two 
> real solutions being worked on at the moment.

Note that something being worked on is not better than something
completed.

Note also that repeating the same discussion against geo and GSE
again and again does not mean "work on".

							Masataka Ohta

PS

It's good that no time is wasted on a requirement draft.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 23:55:26 +0200

On woensdag, mei 14, 2003, at 17:03 Europe/Amsterdam, Kurt Erik 

> the proposals and try and better understand the proposals.

Who are the presenters? The authors?

> I also want to point out that the WG sessions are not there for a full 
> presentation of the proposals - You are supposed to read the drafts > :-)

I fully agree, however: it is likely that there will be a significant 
number of "new" people there to see what's shaking in multi6. It might 
be good to introduce every proposal so the entire audience at least 
knows the general gest of all proposals. Then they can read the draft 
before the second meeting if they're interested.

I think we need more than five minutes per proposal. Would ten be 
doable? Remember that not everyone is as brief as we were at the RIPE 
meeting in Amsterdam.  :-)

> I would personally not want to see several similar proposals being 
> presented,

The different takes on the whole locator/identifier thing are different 
enough to warrant talking about all that are fleshed out enough, I 
think.

Finally an organizational remark: if we allow everyone to have their 
own slides we lose half the allocated time with hooking up laptops. I 
suggest that everyone who presents submits some slides and someone 
makes sure all of them are projected around the right time. If Steve 
Kent can do it over the phone this should be easy...

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:13:23 +0200

On onsdag, maj 14, 2003, at 23:55 Europe/Stockholm, Iljitsch van 
Beijnum wrote:

>> The working-group and the other presenters are allowed to ask 
>> questions on the proposals and try and better understand the 
>> proposals.
>

That was the thinking yes.

>
>> I also want to point out that the WG sessions are not there for a 
>> full presentation of the proposals - You are supposed to read the 
>> drafts > :-)
>

The idea was that that was the 5 min introduction.

> meeting in Amsterdam.  :-)

How much time we have will depend on the amount of proposals. What 
worries me is that this means I most likely will have to keep the 
agenda floating until the draft cut-off date :-)

> The different takes on the whole locator/identifier thing are 
> different enough to warrant talking about all that are fleshed out 
> enough, I think.

Again, this is more a time constraint than anything else and would 
depend on the amount of presentations.

> Kent can do it over the phone this should be easy...

Agreed. I will try and have all presentations on one laptop.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:51:05 +0200

> Why its not three 2H sessions? Have you tried?

No. I don't see the need for it, and I don't think it would be useful. 
If others disagree they are free to step forward.

> Formally? OK. When can I see formal call for proposals?

Eh, from what I know of the IETF, send text. If you send in a draft and 
ask the secretariat to CC the multi6 list we will pick it up and ask 
you to present.

> have been deprecating to discuss specific proposals.

I don't think we are at the stage of formal proposals yet. I think we 
need to learn to walk before we start thinking of doing base-jumping.

>> concentrate on the two main proposals that are currently being worked

I only see two major solution "classes" that have any wider support 
right now.

> Note that something being worked on is not better than something

Something with wide support is better than something completed. It's 
not "first with code" it's "running code AND consensus".

- kurtis -

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 19:28:50 +0859 ()

Kurt;

You are totally confused.

> need to learn to walk before we start thinking of doing base-jumping.

I never said "formal proposals".

However, you said "proposals that have then been made formally
to the IETF", which means "formal proposals".

Do you need formal proposals or not?

> I only see two major solution "classes" that have any wider support 

Assuming you are requesting formal proposals, do you need formal
proposals of classes?

Or, do you need formal proposals of solutions?

> not "first with code" it's "running code AND consensus".

A class can not have code, a solution of a class can.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 19:36:31 +0859 ()

Kurt;

> If others disagree they are free to step forward.

that the time constraint is artificially put by no one else but you.

Then, you wrote Iljitsch that

> depend on the amount of presentations.

So, why not have three 2H sessions and stop saying "time constraint"?

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 16:17:45 +0200

On torsdag, maj 15, 2003, at 12:29 Europe/Stockholm, Masataka Ohta 

> You are totally confused.

Thank you.

> Do you need formal proposals or not?

With proposals that have been made formally I meant submitted to the 
IETF. That is enough. I will try and go out and ask the authors of what 
I can find that is in the current drafts directory to find presenters 
for the first session. If I miss someone, I am sure the WG will point 
that out to me.

> Or, do you need formal proposals of solutions?

For the first session I am looking at the drafts submitted.

> A class can not have code, a solution of a class can.

And both can have support or not have to support.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 16:18:34 +0200

On torsdag, maj 15, 2003, at 12:37 Europe/Stockholm, Masataka Ohta 

> that the time constraint is artificially put by no one else but you.

Correct. For the reason stated above.

- kurtis -

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 18:36:38 +0200

> So, why not have three 2H sessions and stop saying "time constraint"?

because you will need a different AD to approve it.  this wg has yet
to show good use of one session.  you don't get any pudding unless
you eat your meat.

randy

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 06:37:17 +0859 ()

Randy;

> because you will need a different AD to approve it.

According to Kurt, no.

>>> Are you saying that you have tried to request 3 slots and denied by
>>> IESG?
>>>
>>> Or, are you just saying you are not so sure?
>>
>> I am saying that I do not think it would be useful for us to request
>> three slots. I don't think that will move us forward.

the problem was and still is "I (Kurt) do not think it would be useful"
that it is at the chair(s), not at IESG (yet).

> this wg has yet

We are not yet at the table to eat the meat.

We are hungry that I'm saying to sit and check menu.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 06:47:16 +0859 ()

Kurt;

> Correct. For the reason stated above.

Then, how can you say Iljitsch that

> depend on the amount of presentations.

Randy, this is not a problem of AD.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 07:08:00 +0859 ()

Kurt;

> > You are totally confused.

You are welcome.

> for the first session. If I miss someone, I am sure the WG will point 

Please first ask all the people to be the authors by call for drafts.

> For the first session I am looking at the drafts submitted.

Which drafts? On classes or on solutions?

Please call for them clarifying it.

> And both can have support or not have to support.

But, solutions can be evaluated only after classes are chosen.

It is fine for you to say:

	it is very clear that there is only two
	real classes being worked on at the moment.

but, you said:

That is, you are totally confused.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 02:57:31 -0400

> that the time constraint is artificially put by no one else but you.

Are you disagreeing? In absence of disagreement then presumably it's a 
reasonable way to set up the time management.

> So, why not have three 2H sessions and stop saying "time constraint"?
Because the time constraint is intentional. It's not a time constraint 
imposed by above, but rather self-imposed to improve the effectiveness 
of the meeting. More time does not always equal better.

simon

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 11:38:52 +0200

On donderdag, mei 15, 2003, at 18:36 Europe/Amsterdam, Randy Bush wrote:

> this wg has yet to show good use of one session.

Randy, are you seriously suggesting that the chairs will be denied even 
a signle session in Vienna?

Obviously this wg isn't the best example of the IETF's prowess but we 
have been making progress towards useful work and consensus the past 
months, and I think it's important to capitalize on that face to face 
and create some momentum for further progress. Email and face to face 
interaction are simply not interchangable.

So what is it going to be: do you want to be part of the problem, or 
part of the solution?

Now if you have concrete suggestions for progress, by all means, let us 
know. (And yes, we know we have to send code.)

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 13:31:47 +0200

I believe we have a reasonable agenda proposal already from Kurt,
and that we need to meet. Certainly, whether to keep the WG alive
and if so how its charter needs to be updated should be a topic for
the end of the second session.

  Brian

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 18:39:03 +0100

I thought two multi6 sessions had been agreed some time ago for Vienna?

Is this no longer the case?  If so, why?

Tim

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 13:26:41 +0859 ()

Simon;

> Are you disagreeing?

Yes.

> In absence of disagreement then presumably it's a 

> of the meeting.

Then, the reasoning against Iljitsch must not be a constraint on time
but a poorness of content.

In my case, note that, as Kurt said, he never seen my draft that
he can't say anything about the effectiveness of the meeting with
regard to my draft.

So, it is an intentional, but purposeless time constraint.

> More time does not always equal better.

Remember that we must spent a week at Vienna, anyway.

Our concern is effectiveness of the week.

The effectiveness of the WG meeting becomes our concern only with
externally imposed time constraint.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:22:50 +0200 (CEST)

The agenda proposal makes sense to me.

> status on this, and perhaps a summary of the earlier session.

I don't understand the split across "two main proposals".

loc/id separation can be done either a the hosts, in some (border) router,
or in a combination of them (e.g. for transition reasons doing it
in the border router first with the intent to moving it to the host).

I would understand the split between longer term solutions based on
loc/id separation, and shorter term ones based on multi-addressing
(e.g. Christian's proposal).

Mobile IP-based solutions might fall somewhere in between the two
since there isn't a strict split between loc and id; everything is an
IP address with some being more stable than others and a binding
protocol.

Can you unconfuse me?

  Erik

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:24:40 +0200

> Randy, this is not a problem of AD.

I simply think that we will not move more forward just because we add 
2h. If there is something that is that important, I think we better 
take it to the mailinglist and discuss it here first.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:26:43 +0200

>> because you will need a different AD to approve it.

Say again? I think I have made it pretty clear that we will not apply 
for three 2h sessions.

> that it is at the chair(s), not at IESG (yet).
...I still don't think that thee 2h sessions will be useful. Sorry. You 
have yet to convince me.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:30:23 +0200

>> th proposals that have been made formally I meant submitted to the

There is a draft cut-off date posted by the IETF secretariat. If you 
submit a draft and ask that it should be CC:ed to a certain WG it will 
(see recent discussion on the ietf mailinglist). Once that is done, I 
will also try and make a list and post it here. If someone feel that I 
have forgotten about them I am sure I will be told..:)

> But, solutions can be evaluated only after classes are chosen.

As Tony Li pointed out, we should start with an architecture. That is 
where we should spend time in the second session, to try and find 
points where we can find agreement and build from there.

> That is, you are totally confused.

I will leave that to others to judge.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:44:31 +0200

> Randy, are you seriously suggesting that the chairs will be denied 
> even a signle session in Vienna?
>

I noticed that Randy have not answered, but I also know that Randy most 
likely have been traveling back from Barcelona and his vacation/RIPE 
meeting.

When in Barcelona, Randy told me he would approve the two session 
approach. I think that Randys point above is that we now need to prove 
that we can use those two sessions for something useful and actually 
produce something.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:50:12 +0200

> but a poorness of content.

I was not arguing against Iljitsch. I said that the time allocated to 
each proposal will depend on the number of items to be discussed. This 
will apply now matter how much total time we have.

 From what I can tell, no one else than you seem to think that we need 
more time than the two sessions we are going to ask for. Therefor I 
will today go ahead with the proposed agenda and send it to the IETF 
secretariat.

> he can't say anything about the effectiveness of the meeting with

It's true that I haven't read it. But I have never see any draft that 
have improved from having it discussed at length at a IETF WG meeting. 
what I HAVE seen is discussions being short, and to the point if people 
have actually read the draft. Perhaps I should publish a reading list 
before the meeting, hoping it would improve the discussions....

Note that there is a reason that many WG chairs ask how many in the 
audience have actually read the drafts being discussed.

> Remember that we must spent a week at Vienna, anyway.

Yes, but it's not only multi6 that is meeting during this week.

> Our concern is effectiveness of the week.

Mine too.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:00:27 +0200

> (e.g. Christian's proposal).

In my original mail, with host based what I meant was multiaddressing 
and I think I finally understand in what way I managed to confuse 
Ohta-san.

> Can you unconfuse me?

I hope I did.

- kurtis -

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 13:52:38 +0200 (CEST)

> and I think I finally understand in what way I managed to confuse 

Yes. Thanks.

  Erik

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 08:32:35 -0700

( i was on holiday, and then a mail system here broke.  sorry for the
  latter.  eat your hearts out re the former :-)

>> even a signle session in Vienna?

i said "no agenda, no meeting."  that is normal ietf practice.  life
is simple until you get above layer eight.  ymmv.

> that we can use those two sessions for something useful and actually 

yup.

randy

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 08:05:21 +0859 ()

Kurt;

> Say again? I think I have made it pretty clear that we will not apply 

You are a (co-)chair, not an AD.

That is why you, not the AD, are the problem.

In addition, it is another problem that you have little understanding
on IETF procedure.

Randy, have you recognized that, unless the problems are solved, there
is no point to trying to have a different AD to approve it.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 20:28:49 -0700

> is no point to trying to have a different AD to approve it.

what i recognize is a lot of rude fighting and little technical
content.  and it is technical content which gets meeting slots.

randy

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:12:33 +0200

Yes.

> That is why you, not the AD, are the problem.

Ok, let's take this one last time. In order to have any more than one 
slot, you need approval by the AD. In order to have three slots, you 
need to have IESG approval. In order for this to reach the IESG, you 
need to have the AD bring there. Randy, correct me if I am wrong.

I as co-chair do not support having three slots. Even if I did, Randy 
as AD does not support having three slots. So, as it stands, you would 
have to convince both be and Randy (and probably Sean) that three slots 
would be useful. After that you need the IESG to approve it.

If you don't like this, there are ways to appeal.

 From what I see on the mailinglist, there have been support for having 
ONLY two sessions. Only you have asked us to hold a third session. 
Also, from what I have understood you wanted the third session so that 
we could have more time for people to present their proposals. Again, 
my understanding of the IETF process and the IETF meetings are that you 
present proposals by writing drafts. The sessions are there for general 
architectural discussions and to sort out details of the drafts.

> In addition, it is another problem that you have little understanding

I don't know what part of the process I am failing to understand. The 
above is my understanding, and I am sure that Randy or Erik as ADs and 
IESG members or any of the former IAB and IESG members on this list can 
help me understand this if I am wrong. Please point out any 
misunderstandings.

- kurtis -

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:15:42 +0200

> content.  and it is technical content which gets meeting slots.

Agreed. For the FYI of everyone I have requested the two meeting slots 
as described in my original mail. The two slots have been approved by 
the AD (Randy). I am waiting for the next update mail from the IETF 
secretariat to acknowledge it.

If anyone still disagrees, please let's take that off-line from the 
mailing list. Either to me or through other channels you feel 
appropriate.

- kurtis -

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 20:54:30 +0859 ()

Randy;

> content.  and it is technical content which gets meeting slots.

Technical content?

The first step is to write drafts. The second step is to read them.
Then, discussions could begin.

As you know, I have wrote a draft with techncal contents long ago.

Relatively recently, as discussions not on a requirement draft has
been strongly discouraged, Sean asked several questions and I gave
answers.

Kurt said he has never read it and, even though he said he would
read it, I have received nothing from him, yet.

For newer proposals, it is not so clear yet, at which level of
abstraction we will be expected to spend most of the time at
Vienna, even though I explicitely asked Kurt to clarify the target.

So, how, do you think, we can move forward with technical content?

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 09:17:16 +0200

> Vienna, even though I explicitely asked Kurt to clarify the target.

The first session we have said that we want the submitted drafts to be 
presented briefly and then discussed. See this as a catalyst for 
further discussions in the hallways until the second session. For the 
second sessions we should concentrate on the architecture and the way 
forward.

- kurtis -