[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP

Hi Stephen, 

I believe what James is saying is that there was never a HUM to include
an applicability statement into the document. He is correct about this
aspect.  

Instead, there were some folks in the group who thought they should
discuss how a potential text could look like and Brian included it into
the document.

This has upset a few folks. 

When it comes to important things like these the working group always
has to make a conscious decision
* whether they want to include an applicability statement at all, and 
* if so, what it should say. 

What we should also keep in mind is that our document might bounce back
from the IESG with the indication that we should resolve the technical
issues that prevent applicability of the work in a certain environment. 

In this weeks 3GPP IETF conference call Cullen has asked Hannu to
solicit feedback from the 3GPP about the technical issues that prevent
the work being used in the cellular environment. He very well
understands that the 3GPP is working on IMS and has crafted many things
on their own. 

Ciao
Hannes


>-----Original Message-----
>From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] 
>On Behalf Of ext Edge, Stephen
>Sent: 05 May, 2009 06:19
>To: Winterbottom, James; Gellens, Randall; Spencer Dawkins; 
>Hardie,Ted; Dawson, Martin; BernardAboba; Thomson, Martin; 
>ecrit at ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
>
>Perhaps "mostly harmless" then?
>
>Note that we are having this discussion now as a result of a 
>previous discussion concerning the suitability of the Ecrit 
>solution for any type of public IP access. Those contending 
>that the solution is suitable are (by and large) the ones now 
>objecting to including the statement although they were not 
>objecting just over 5 weeks ago when the statement was 
>introduced as a means of settling the first discussion. Those 
>contending that the solution is not universally suitable are 
>(as far as I am aware) prepared to drop that issue (at least 
>as regards having the solution go through last call) if the 
>statement is included.
>
>If the statement is in the end removed, we may find ourselves 
>back again to the first discussion. If that happens, I will 
>consider the solution fair game for some more specific and 
>detailed criticism than has so far been provided - since after 
>all, any solution that claims universal applicability is 
>setting itself up as rather large and inviting target.
>
>Kind Regards
>
>Stephen
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Winterbottom, James [mailto:James.Winterbottom at andrew.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 5:33 PM
>To: Gellens, Randall; Spencer Dawkins; Hardie, Ted; Dawson, 
>Martin; Edge, Stephen; BernardAboba; Thomson, Martin; ecrit at ietf.org
>Subject: RE: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
>
>There was no consensus to add the text, whether the wording is 
>a compromise is irrelevant at this stage. It was added without 
>consensus and needs to be removed.
>
>Cheers
>James
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Randall Gellens [mailto:randy at qualcomm.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, 5 May 2009 10:29 AM
>To: Winterbottom, James; Spencer Dawkins; Ted Hardie; Dawson, 
>Martin; Edge,Stephen; BernardAboba; Thomson, Martin; ecrit at ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
>
>At 7:16 PM -0500 5/4/09, James Winterbottom wrote:
>
>>  Under the same reasoning Randy, since there was never consensus in
>the
>>  WG to add it,
>
>There may not have been a formal consensus call, but there was 
>significant discussion on the list, and my impression was that 
>we had general agreement to add it.
>
>>   it should never have been added, and since no real  justification 
>> for its inclusion has been provided,
>
>There has been much justification with detailed reasoning for 
>adding it.
>
>>   we should revert back
>>  to the previous version of the document and proceed to last 
>call the  
>> document.
>
>It was added as a compromise based on the discussion in SFO 
>and on the list subsequently.  It's a compromise, like much of 
>the text we publish.
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: ecrit-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ecrit-bounces at ietf.org] On
>Behalf
>>  Of Randall Gellens
>>  Sent: Tuesday, 5 May 2009 8:26 AM
>>  To: Spencer Dawkins; Ted Hardie; Dawson, Martin; Edge,Stephen;  
>> BernardAboba; Thomson, Martin; ecrit at ietf.org; RandallGellens
>>  Subject: Re: [Ecrit] PhoneBCP
>>
>>  At 5:00 PM -0500 5/4/09, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>>
>>>>   The statement added in -09 is a compromise; even the 
>most fervent  
>>>> argument against it comes down to "it isn't needed".  Given the  
>>>> choice between a compromise statement that clearly does no harm,  
>>>> and, depending on one's viewpoint is either vitally needed or  
>>>> redundant, it seem clear that we should progress the 
>document with  
>>>> the text in it.
>>>
>>>   I'm having a difficult time thinking of "clearly does no 
>harm" as  
>>> sufficient justification for including text in a document that's  
>>> still tagged as a BCP...
>>
>>  I never said "clearly does no harm" is *sufficient* 
>justification for  
>> adding it, rather, it's justification for not removing it given the  
>> arguments for it.  There are a number of people who have made  
>> well-reasoned and detailed cases for why this text is needed; since  
>> it is already a compromise that does no harm, the choice to 
>leave it  
>> in seems clear.
>>
>>  --
>>  Randall Gellens
>>  Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself
>only
>>  -------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------  Procedures!  
>> Of course, that's what you'd use with a *sophisticated*
>>  machine like this.  Procedures.    --'Ceaser Smith' in 
>_Hot_Millions_
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Ecrit mailing list
>>  Ecrit at ietf.org
>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>>
>> 
>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>---------
>------------------------
>>  This message is for the designated recipient only and may  contain 
>> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
>>  If you have received it in error, please notify the sender  
>> immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of  this 
>> email is prohibited.
>> 
>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>---------
>------------------------
>>  [mf2]
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Ecrit mailing list
>>  Ecrit at ietf.org
>>  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>
>
>--
>Randall Gellens
>Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
>-------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- I have 
>made it a rule, whenever in my power, to avoid becoming the 
>draughtsman of papers to be reviewed by a public body.
>              --Benjamin Franklin
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------
>This message is for the designated recipient only and may 
>contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  
>If you have received it in error, please notify the sender 
>immediately and delete the original.  Any unauthorized use of 
>this email is prohibited.
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------
>[mf2]
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ecrit mailing list
>Ecrit at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
>