Re: [BEHAVE] adopt draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64-06 as WG item
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [BEHAVE] adopt draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64-06 as WG item
sigh, there seem to be a severe misunderstanding of the IETF process here.
documents do not have authors, have editors.
editors are usually people that have contributed with a significant
amount of text to the document.
simple counter examples to your statement about several editors are
needed to maintain and improve the document:
- RFC791, IPv4 protocol, only one editor.
- RFC793, TCP protocol, only one editor.
- RFC2460, IPv6 protocol, two editors
- RFC4555, MOBKE protocol, one editor.
and an extremely long list of etc... actually, there are 2859 documents
with only one editor, according to stats, which is the 39,18% of the
documents in the IETF the highest percentage (not surprisingly, followed
by the 26% of document with two editors)
If what you said was true, most of the documents would have the maximum
number of editors i.e. 5 editors, but only 5% of the document have 5
editors.
So, documents with only one editor are extremely common and the
resulting documents can have an excelent quality and it is the most
common situation in the ietf.
Regards, marcelo
Kai Ju escribió:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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>>
> > >> [mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>>
> > >>>> [mailto: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>
> <mailto: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> <mailto:dwing at cisco.com
> <mailto:dwing at cisco.com>>>:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>>> From: Zhen Cao [mailto:caozhenpku at gmail.com
> <mailto:caozhenpku at gmail.com>
> > <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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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> <mailto:Behave at ietf.org
> <mailto:Behave at ietf.org>>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> >
> >
>
>
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
