RE: [dccp] WG Last Call for Problem Statement

[john.loughney at nokia.com]

Colin,

I think that it would be good to publish it.  I think that there might be
some tweaking needed in the document, should you decide to last call it.
If you last call it, I can at least commit to reviewing it.

John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dccp-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dccp-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> ext Colin Perkins
> Sent: 14 July, 2005 17:20
> To: Tom Phelan
> Cc: Lars Eggert ((E-mail)); Eddie Kohler; DCCP working group; Sally
> Floyd ((E-mail)); Allison Mankin ((E-mail))
> Subject: Re: [dccp] WG Last Call for Problem Statement
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I largely agree with Eddie. I'm not sure I see a great need to  
> publish this, but I have no real objections and it might be 
> useful as  
> a historical record (and a note might be added, stating that it's  
> being published to record the previous discussion).
> 
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 Jul 2005, at 01:09, Eddie Kohler wrote:
> > As one of the coauthors of the problem statement document, I just  
> > wanted to say publicly that I don't think it needs to be published  
> > as an RFC, although it reads better than I remembered.  I don't  
> > care much either way.  (I know Sally wants it published.)
> >
> > Some comments.  This paragraph could be a little less tortured:
> >
> >     This problem statement began in 2002 as a formalization of the  
> > goals
> >     of DCCP, which was at that time a proposed protocol already
> >     described in several Internet-Drafts. We intended DCCP 
> to satisfy
> >     the problem statement laid out here. However, we believed the
> >     problem should be solved whether or not the chosen solution is  
> > DCCP,
> >     and the DCCP drafts should be judged based on this 
> document or its
> >     successors.  For convenience, in this document we write 
> "DCCP" to
> >     mean "any protocol that satisfies this problem statement".
> >
> > I would get rid of the "and the DCCP drafts should be judged"  
> > clause, and possibly the following sentence.
> >
> > In Section 5, we might augment some of the paragraphs with the  
> > decisions we made.  E.g. "Mobility" says "one outstanding design  
> > decision with any new transport protocol concerns whether to  
> > incorporate mechanisms for multi-homing and mobility into the  
> > protocol itself."  To which we answered "Hell, no, no mobility in  
> > the core protocol yet."
> >
> > Eddie
> >
> >
> > On Jun 30, 2005, at 9:46 AM, Phelan, Tom wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> This is to kick off a Working Group Last Call for the "Problem  
> >> Statement for DCCP" draft -- http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ 
> >> draft-ietf-dccp-problem-01.txt
> >>
> >> Since this draft already had a last call on the previous version,  
> >> quite some time ago, we'll try to keep this brief and end on  
> >> Thursday, June 14 (two weeks from today).
> >>
> >> When you comment, try to make the fact that it's a last call  
> >> comment on the problem statement obvious in the subject, so that  
> >> we can easily find the comments for summary afterwards.
> >>
> >> Tom P.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>