RE: CTP and CARD Drafts

Hi Allison, James,

Thank you James for the clarification and I actually do have the concern
you brought up.

Allison, I understood the committment to be by Rajeev and Carsten to review
the feasibility of CTP for Rohc. Was that discussed as a pre-requisite
for CTP to go IESG review? especially since CTP is going to be an
_experimental_ RFC anyway? I guessed I missed that part!!

I for one did give the warning that Rohc of all protocols has the toughest
requirements on CTP timing and so on, but I guess the balls had already
 started rolling! Our original TEXT draft (pre-design team) did bring
up a whole bunch of issues that any CT protocol would need to overcome
when dealing  with header compression.

A bunch of other protocols were suggested in Wienna for a simpler
CTP deployment and they were knocked down.

After all that and all the tears, sweat we dropped over CTP in the
last 3-4 years, it is surprising to see the ADs bring up the discussions
and doubts they had about CT at time of WG formation!!! 
Why was the WG formed and the item accepted then?
After all, IETF is based on people doing volunteer work, 
earning daily bread elsewhere.
IESG should strive keep those people put and motivated rather than pulling
items out after 4 years.

Finally, I personally had ramped down my CTP volunteer work mid last year
due to other committments. I applaud other authors, especially Rajeev
for carrying the load and I have no doubt about the quality of Rajeev's
 work on Rohc CTP, but I still see this process as a surprisingly stringent one.

Regards,

Madjid

-----Original Message-----
From: Allison Mankin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 10:18 PM
To: James Kempf
Cc: Nakhjiri Madjid-MNAKHJI1; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Seamoby] CTP and CARD Drafts 


All,

Actually, there's been a little bit of misunderstanding of my message about the
CTP draft, which is easy to have happen, because we were all very busy during
the IETF week.  What I meant was that I had to talk with some ROHC people about CTP,
not that ROHC _WG_ review of the document would be required.  

Why is this?  It's due to some commitment that was made in the Vienna Seamoby 
meeting to deliver Seamoby with a use case, which I understood would probably be
header compression context.  The minutes show an action item to work with Carsten
Bormann to make this concrete.  We discussed the need for the use case that
would describe a context very well defined in IETF, with ROHC header compression
meeting that criterion.  If contexts for context transfer are just open-ended,
and there isn't an clear use case, it's hard to build support for this
protocol in the broader IETF (not only the IESG - we had a lot* of questions
about this charter item when the WG was formed).  

So, I've done a little talking and looking at the document.  The example of a
service that was supposed to be covered in Appendix C is missing.  There is no 
companion document describing a use case.  What's up?

Allison

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03jul/index.html