Re: [Pana] draft-ietf-pana-statemachine issue

[<Basavaraj.Patil at nokia.com>]

Hi Jari,

I agree that the IESG does not have the time to work on the design of the
state machine I-D.
If the authors are not happy about the current design of the state machine
as submitted to the IESG, we can recall the I-D and work on it until the
authors and the WG is satisfied with the outcome. And I am fine with your
suggestion that the authors can work on a bis version to add extra details
and features to the state machine.

However I do not think that I would want to do that. Hence please go ahead
and approve rev 12 of the I-D.

-Raj 


On 6/9/09 11:16 AM, "ext Jari Arkko" <jari.arkko at piuha.net> wrote:

> I will again make the observation that we have a working spec in -12.
> That has been the case since April. There aren't any Discusses either.
> 
> I would really like to push the approve button, but you guys keep
> telling me that you want to code the state machine in some other way.
> Then I push for you to state what exactly your solution is and after
> studying it in detail either me or Pasi sees a problem. Then we start
> again from the start. We've already been through this a couple of times,
> and every time there's an obviously correct change to the state machine.
> And now Pasi tells me that he doesn't want to be involved in the
> discussion anymore. Can't say I blame him, its not his job to design the
> state machine, its his job to verify that its not broken. And currently,
> its not. The latest proposal from Yoshihiro to add queue management to
> the state machine does not sound like a trivial change. I could review
> it, but I think there would still be a 50% chance that I would miss
> something.
> 
> So I have a proposal. Unless I hear a strong objection from the entire
> WG as opposed to one or two individuals, I will actually press the
> approve button on Thursday. If there is a need to incorporate more
> advanced functionality, I would suggest that you guys take the time to
> work out a bis draft to update the current RFC, I would gladly AD
> sponsor it. I do not think it is wise to stall for months on this issue,
> and I don't want to do major changes without sending the document back
> to the WG.
> 
> Jari
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pana mailing list
> Pana at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pana