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

["Dan Wing" <dwing at cisco.com>]

Thank you for everyone's input on this topic.

-d
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: behave-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:behave-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of bo zhou
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 7:14 PM
> To: marcelo bagnulo braun
> Cc: Sheng Jiang; behave at ietf.org; Zhen Cao; 鹏'; 曹振; Behave 
> Chairs; Dan Wing; Kai Ju
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] adopt draft-van-beijnum-behave-ftp64-06 
> as WG item
> 
> Well, i do not think one editor is a common culture in IETF, 
> especially behave working group.
>  
> RFC:
> rfc4787, two editors
> rfc5134, two editors
> rfc5128, four editors
> rfc5382, five editors
> etc.
>  
> Working group draft:
> NAT64: three editors
> IPv6 addressing of IPv4/IPv6 translators: five editors
> NAT behavior discovery using STUN: two editors
> etc.
>  
> Hence, i think if the editor contribute something is 
> valuable, the first editor should consider add the other 
> editor as draft editor. However, if the first editor think 
> the others only contribute little, he can avoid adding. 
> Personal suggestion only.
>  
>  
> regards,
>  
> Bo
> 
>  
> 2009/11/2 marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>
> 
> 
> 	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
> 	>     >
> 	>     >
> 	>
> 	>
> 	
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	Behave mailing list
> 	Behave at ietf.org
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Bo Zhou
> China Mobile
> 
>