Re: [BEHAVE] adopt draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64-06 as WG item

[Kai Ju <jukai.zte at gmail.com>]

Having the proper authors to maintenance and improve the document is also an important base for a WG document.Further more, more contributers to the document will have no harm, conversely， will help to make the document better and frelect the consensus.

 

BR, Kai

 

2009/10/29, marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>:

that s exactly the condition that i find very strange for adopting a
document... either the document is a good base for a WG document or not,
irrespectively of the editors that the document has.

the basis for accepting a WG document should be technical reasons not
whether you like or not the editor list.

regards, marcelo


Kai Ju escribió:
> jiang sheng's pre condition is quite clear, by including other author,
> this draft could be adopted.
>
> 2009/10/29 marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es
> <mailto:marcelo at it.uc3m.es>>
>
>     so, you do agree to take this doc as a WG item, right?
>
>
>     Sheng Jiang escribió:
>     > My opinions here is simple: without the contributions from China
>     Mobile, the
>     > draft is not good enough to be adopted as WG document though its
>     initial
>     > contents are valuable and important. I support the current draft
>     to be
>     > adopted for its contents without conditions. I also think single
>     author does
>     > not respect the others who makes important contributions.
>     >
>     > Furthermore, after the draft be accepted as WG document, future
>     refine work
>     > is still needed. A coauthor from China Mobile, who has proofed
>     understanding
>     > ftp64 issues, will only do good for the work.
>     >
>     > I don't understand the insistence why rejects a helpful
>     coauthor. For me, if
>     > an expert who understands my draft well wants to coauthor my
>     draft with
>     > valuable contributions, he will be really appreciated.
>     >
>     > Best regards,
>     >
>     > Sheng
>     >
>     >
>     >> -----Original Message-----
>     >> From: behave-bounces at ietf.org <mailto:behave-bounces at ietf.org>
>     >> [mailto:behave-bounces at ietf.org
>     <mailto:behave-bounces at ietf.org>] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
>     >> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 2:44 PM
>     >> To: Sheng Jiang
>     >> Cc: behave at ietf.org <mailto:behave at ietf.org>; 'Zhen Cao'; '刘大
>     鹏'; '曹振'; 'Behave
>     >> Chairs'; 'Dan Wing'
>     >> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] adopt draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64-06
>     >> as WG item
>     >>
>     >> What strikes me is that you seem to be conditioning the
>     >> support for acceptance of this doc as WG document to the fact
>     >> whether and additional editor is added to the document or not.
>     >>
>     >> These seems different issues imho. Any document needs to
>     >> reflect the WG consensus whether it has one or many _editors_
>     >>
>     >> The question at hand is whehter this document is or not a
>     >> good starting point to do that.
>     >>
>     >> Regards, marcelo
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Sheng Jiang escribió:
>     >>
>     >>> Hi, Iljitsch,
>     >>>
>     >>> Taking one coauthor from the carriers, who would be the
>     >>>
>     >> major user of
>     >>
>     >>> ftp64, would potentially make your work better. Actually,
>     >>>
>     >> their work
>     >>
>     >>> has already improved your draft as you took input from
>     >>>
>     >> their draft and
>     >>
>     >>> the discussion with them. It should do no harm for you, I guess.
>     >>>
>     >>> Sheng
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >>>> -----Original Message-----
>     >>>> From: behave-bounces at ietf.org <mailto:behave-bounces at ietf.org>
>     >>>> [mailto:behave-bounces at ietf.org
>     <mailto:behave-bounces at ietf.org>] On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo braun
>     >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:55 PM
>     >>>> To: Zhen Cao
>     >>>> Cc: 刘大鹏; 曹振; behave at ietf.org <mailto:behave at ietf.org>;
>     Behave Chairs; Dan Wing
>     >>>> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] adopt
>     >>>>
>     >> draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64-06 as WG
>     >>
>     >>>> item
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Zhen,
>     >>>>
>     >>>> from the points you make, it doesn't seem that you have a
>     >>>>
>     >> fundamental
>     >>
>     >>>> problem with the document but changes that can easily be
>     >>>>
>     >> integrated
>     >>
>     >>>> in the document, if the WG agreed with them. Since we are only
>     >>>> accepting a WG document and not in WGLC, i don't think the
>     >>>>
>     >> argument
>     >>
>     >>>> is strong not ot accept the doc as a WG document, it just
>     >>>>
>     >> needs to be
>     >>
>     >>>> improved as any other doc when accepted as WG document.
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Regards, marcelo
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>> Zhen Cao escribió:
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>> 2009/10/28 Dan Wing <dwing at cisco.com <mailto:dwing at cisco.com>>:
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>     >>>>>>> From: Zhen Cao [mailto:caozhenpku at gmail.com
>     <mailto:caozhenpku at gmail.com>]
>     >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:40 AM
>     >>>>>>> To: Dan Wing
>     >>>>>>> Cc: behave at ietf.org <mailto:behave at ietf.org>; 刘大鹏; 曹
>     振; Behave Chairs
>     >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] adopt
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>> draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64-06 as WG
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>>>> item
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> Hi Dan and All,
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>> Many parts of the document are still very confusing. 1)
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>> It did not
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>>>> clearly specify the target scenario. From the title,
>     people may
>     >>>>>>> think it is talking about IPv6 ftp client communicating
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>> with IPv4 server.
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>>>> But in section.5, it confuses me a lot by this sentence
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>> "even if the
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>>>> client has IPv4 reachability......". 2) ALG problem. Section 6
>     >>>>>>> starts with ALG but does not specify clearly which case
>     >>>>>>>
>     >> needs ALG
>     >>
>     >>>>>>> and which does not.
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>>>
>     >>>>>> Thanks. I expect those can be resolved as the document
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>> progresses as
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>>> a WG document.
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>>>
>     >>>>> Back to Andrew's proposal, I was just raising some concerns
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>> on why I
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>> do not support the adoption. I am afraid it is not a solid
>     basis.
>     >>>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>>> Behave mailing list
>     >>>>> Behave at ietf.org <mailto:Behave at ietf.org>
>     >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>>>
>     >>>> _______________________________________________
>     >>>> Behave mailing list
>     >>>> Behave at ietf.org <mailto:Behave at ietf.org>
>     >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>>
>     >>>
>     >>>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> Behave mailing list
>     >> Behave at ietf.org <mailto:Behave at ietf.org>
>     >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>     >>
>     >>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Behave mailing list
>     Behave at ietf.org <mailto:Behave at ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>
>