Document Blocking (Was: I-DACTION:draft-ietf-problem-process-00.txt)

[Thomas Narten]

Hi Jim.

> OK here is one example not a document real-time.  multi6 is working
> through their process to get to point where they can discuss next steps
> for a very complex technology effort.  The WG and WG Chairs want to meet
> in Vienna and multiple specs and ideas have been provided. The WG team
> is working and an agenda is being worked.  The AD says we have nothing
> to discuss because no proposal.  None of us agree with the AD.  The AD
> was asked to please be more specific what they want and all we got so
> far is one liners that have no depth or explanation and what we are
> doing wrong.  That is a problem.  It also is real time example of us
> getting one liners in the IETF that are completely not helpful to us in
> the community.  The AD should defend now their case with explicit
> positioning.

There seems to be some misunderstanding. My understanding (after
having happened to talk with Randy who doesn't have email access right
now) is that multi6 will be allowed 2 slots, but that a request for 3
(yes _3_) was denied.

> This is happening with RDMA, Teredo, DSTM, ISATAP out of the IETF now
> and will be deployed and in some cases are currently in the market on
> IPv6 pre-production test beds and RDMA for IPv4.  Note the same AD would
> not permit the latter transition mechanisms to be part of v6ops till a
> set of scenarios are going to be defined.  OK fine we will do it out of
> the IETF and drive it in the market without the IETF.  These were worked
> on with consensus for 3 years.  We the WG were never permitted in the
> debate to work on existing ngtrans work or if we all agreed with the
> method of v6ops.  Don't get me wrong I am doing the v6ops thing and we
> all are but the technology from ngtrans in fact was useful, is being
> deployed, and will be used.  Just without the IETF.  I believe all will
> put up experimental RFCs to put it in some IETF process.

As you know, all of the specific transition proposals (excluding those
already RFCs) are out-of-scope for v6ops until the scenarios work is
done. The purpose of this is to make sure that we validate the actual
transition scenarios that we believe are important and then
find/develop the right transition tools for those scenarios. This was
done to counter the seeming plethora of transition tools that the IETF
was developing with no clear roadmap of which ones should be used
when, where and by whom..

This was not a one AD decision. I (and other ADs) were involved in the
recharter and I supported it (and still do). So let's be clear to
separate the issue of what the WG is working on from the notion that
the current activity is the unchecked action of a single AD.

Thomas