Re: (M2PA) Initial version of M2PA IG is Now Available

Lyndon,

Sorry, I read through it again, and there is not one major bullet in
section 2 that I can agree with.  IMO they are all incorrect, out of
scope, unnecessary or already provided for in test specification.

This process strike me a rather backwards: normally the WG has
discussion to convince the editor of an IG to include an item in the IG,
rather than the editor of the IG trying to convince the WG that some
item needs to be included.  At least this is how we have operated in the
past and I believe that it makes sense.  That is the easiest way to
ensure that the IG represents concensus within the WG.  By reversing the
process, the IG does not represent the concensus of the WG.

I would gladly discuss any of these points within the WG, particularly
with the other authors of the RFC, but I feel that it would be a waste
of time to argue them with the IG's author when noone else in the WG seems
to care to discuss them.

Contrary to the legal principle, silence in this case might mean
absence rather than consent. ;)

What happened to moving the WG to another area?  I thought that the
WG items were complete...  Are you suggesting that we recharter to
include an M2PA-IG as a work item?  What about the SUA-IG?  Should
we not complete an rfc3868bis incorporating the SUA-IG or move the
SUA-IG to an RFC?  The SUA-IG is already a WG item and currently
is the only oustanding item to completing the charter.

--brian

Lyndon Ong wrote:                            (Wed, 24 May 2006 19:51:15)
> Ouch, I see we still have a disagreement here.  Are there any
> points in Jeff's document that you agree with?   Are there 
> issues that you feel were missed in the document?
> 
> Also, what are other peoples' views, esp. those that have
> participated in the bakeoffs?
> 
> Advancing the test spec is I think a separate topic.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> L. Ong 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian F. G. Bidulock [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:40 AM
> To: Ong, Lyndon
> Cc: [email protected]; Craig, Jeffrey
> Subject: Re: [Sigtran] (M2PA) Initial version of M2PA IG is Now
> Available
> 
> Lyndon,
> 
> On the contrary, in my case silence means that I disagree with the
> entire document.  IMHO it represents the author's views only, does not
> capture any discussions from the working group, and is unsuitable in its
> current form as a WG item.
> 
> OTOH, as test specs are suitable as informational RFCs, and there is, of
> yet, no other industry test specification for M2PA, I suggest that
> draft-bidulock-sigtran-m2pa-test-06.txt be advanced as an informational
> RFC.
> 
> --brian
> 
> Lyndon Ong wrote:                                (Wed, 24 May 2006
> 10:42:57)
> > 
> >    Hi Folks,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    I have not seen any comments on Jeff's first draft of the M2PA IG,
> > 
> >    so assuming that silence means no concerns - are there objections
> > 
> >    to making the next version a WG draft?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    Cheers,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    L. Ong
> >      _________________________________________________________________
> > 
> >    From: Craig, Jeffrey [mailto:[email protected]]
> >    Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:38 PM
> >    To: [email protected]
> >    Subject: [Sigtran] (M2PA) Initial version of M2PA IG is Now 
> > Available
> > 
> >    Hello All,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >    The initial version of the M2PA Implementer's Guide is now
> available.
> > 
> >
> [1]http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-craig-sigtran-m2pa-ig-00.
> >    txt
> > 
> >    Regards,
> > 
> >    Jeff
> > 
> > References
> > 
> >    1. 
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-craig-sigtran-m2pa-ig-00.txt
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sigtran mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran
> 
> 
> --
> Brian F. G. Bidulock
> [email protected]
> http://www.openss7.org/

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/