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

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo at it.uc3m.es>]

ooops, sorry for the last two emails i sent on this topic after Dan
closed the disucssion.

I missed Dan's email.

I won't reply any further email on this issue.

Regards, marcelo



Dan Wing escribió:
> 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
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>