Complex Problems

[Jonne.Soininen at nokia.com]

James,

> 
> I'm sorry, I think this is directly relevent to the list's 
> discussion topic. My
> message was in response to Marshall's proposal for the IETF 
> to not do any
> architecture work and just do engineering for other SDOs that 
> bring their
> architecture and requirements to IETF, but I believe this has 
> in fact been
> happening for some time now with respect to 3GPP, and I 
> believe it has led to
> some significant problems, and a monumental increase in work 
> load for the ADs as
> they do the technical liason. The ADs, WG chairs, and WG 
> members not associated
> with the other SDO could simply roll over and not push back 
> on requests that
> violate basic Internet architectural principles, but, to 
> their credit, the folks
> involved in the 3GPP liason have not done that. Rather, they 
> have attempted to
> educate 3GPP on why the Internet architecture is as it is and 
> also tried to show
> 3GPP how their requirements could be met in a way that is 
> consistent with the
> Internet architecuture. But this comes at a massive cost in 
> time for the ADs.
> 
> So if IESG work overload is a problem, then this is one 
> contributing factor.

I wonder which issues you are talking about. To my understing, the IETF-3GPP interface has worked rather well with continuous dialog between the two SDOs. Especially, in the IPv6 area I think we have had very good experiences on both sides, and we still continue to have. Of course, every single extra task loads IESG even more, but I do not think that 3GPP has increased that load "monumentally". There was the increase of SIP related documents in spring 2002, but I think this increase was done in perfect understanding or both sides. (Though, IESG did a great job in summer 2002 to get certain documents out of the door. But I don't think this was architecture related.)

Anyways, I guess this is off-topic, and possibly we can continue this off-line, if you wish.

Cheers,

Jonne.