Subject: [Perc] Canceling 2nd virtual interim

From: Nils Ohlmeier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 23:47:58 -0700

Hello,

Thank you to the people who shared their availability in the Doodle poll for a 2nd virtual interim meeting.

We have seen only a little bit of discussion on the mailing list.
And turn out from the Doodle poll is more sparse then we hoped for.

Therefor the chairs decided to not have a second virtual interim, but instead have a hopefully well prepared discussion in Prague.

Please continue to discuss the options on the mailing list until then.

Best regards

The perc WG

---

From: Alexandre GOUAILLARD <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 15:46:03 +0800

Nils, chairs,

1. There is a day in the doodle with at least 8 persons committed. It looks
almost equal to the number of participating individual in last interim
meeting:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2017-perc-01/minutes/minutes-interim-2017-perc-01-201705240800-00

2. In the previous meeting it was stated explicitly that people would go
back and write documents for next meeting. It is thus not entirely
unexpected not to have activity on the mailing list, everybody waiting for
the written document to discuss from.

3. Not having the discussion now, and waiting for IETF 99 mid-july put us
at risk of either delaying the gula post (originally in June), or taking a
decision by default by lack of time, both of which are less than ideal.

Question 1: could the chair reconsider

Question 2: could we at least commit to have those documents QUICKLY
available (no later than the original proposed meeting frame), and discuss
them on the mailing list?

I would not want someone looking at the archives, and thinking that the
process was slowed down by some always objecting without providing examples
or better alternative, and last minutes decisions to either not accepting
items from the agenda (however intense the corresponding discussion on the
mailing list was) or cancel meetings altogether. While I'm sure this is not
the intend and everybody here is acting in good faith, I am concerned about
how it could be perceived.

Regards,

Alex.

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Nils Ohlmeier <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Therefor the chairs decided to not have a second virtual interim, but
> instead have a hopefully well prepared discussion in Prague.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Perc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc
>
>

-- 
Alex. Gouaillard, PhD, PhD, MBA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President - CoSMo Software Consulting, Singapore
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard

   -

---

From: Nils Ohlmeier <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 16:28:56 -0700

Hi Alex,

> On Jun 3, 2017, at 00:46, Alexandre GOUAILLARD <[email-masked]> wrote:

[…]

> 2. In the previous meeting it was stated explicitly that people would go back and write documents for next meeting. It is thus not entirely unexpected not to have activity on the mailing list, everybody waiting for the written document to discuss from.

During the last interim meeting we requested discussion to happen on the mailing list. Even though I admit that I failed to cover that in the meeting minutes.

From the action items covered by the meeting minutes I have seen so far Sergio writing up his concerns regarding end-to-end repair not working.
Neither have we received any write-ups or pull requests from Cullen or Emil regarding the main concern of to accomplish hob-by-hop repair.

We saw a little bit of discussion around Sergio’s PERC lite proposal on the list. But I’m failing to see how this proposal fits into the PERC requirements.
Once it is clear how this affects all the aspects of PERC we can certainly arrange for an interim or give it agenda time in Prague.

[…]

> Question 2: could we at least commit to have those documents QUICKLY available (no later than the original proposed meeting frame), and discuss them on the mailing list?

I would really appreciate it if Emil and Cullen could deliver their write-ups as soon as possible.
I have cc’ed both in the hope this serves as a reminder.

Best regards
  Nils Ohlmeier

> I would not want someone looking at the archives, and thinking that the process was slowed down by some always objecting without providing examples or better alternative, and last minutes decisions to either not accepting items from the agenda (however intense the corresponding discussion on the mailing list was) or cancel meetings altogether. While I'm sure this is not the intend and everybody here is acting in good faith, I am concerned about how it could be perceived.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Alex.
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Nils Ohlmeier <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perc>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard <http://sg.linkedin.com/agouaillard>
>

---

From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 01:55:43 +0200

El 7/6/2017 1:29, "Nils Ohlmeier" <[email-masked]>

We saw a little bit of discussion around Sergio’s PERC lite proposal on the
list. But I’m failing to see how this proposal fits into the PERC
requirements.

[..]

Once it is clear how this affects all the aspects of PERC we can certainly
arrange for an interim or give it agenda time in Prague.

This of not acceptable.

You have not raised your concerns about my proposal on the mailing list and
then you reject it because there had been no discussion?

You cancel an interim meeting so I can explain further my proposal and at
the same time you say it is not clear how it can affect all aspects of PERC
and argue if it can even be presented in Prague?

Regards
Sergio

---

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 01:25:27 +0000

> On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:28 PM, Nils Ohlmeier <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

thanks for reminder - I have been working on stuff but the JSEP stuff has priority over this right now so not exactly sure when I will have it. Cullen

---

From: Suhas Nandakumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:13:39 -0700

Hello Sergio

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Sergio Garcia Murillo <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> We saw a little bit of discussion around Sergio’s PERC lite proposal on
> the list. But I’m failing to see how this proposal fits into the PERC
> requirements.
>
>
> [..]
>
> You have not raised your concerns about my proposal on the mailing list
> and then you reject it because there had been no discussion?
>

[Suhas] I don't think it is unfair for chairs to ask the authors of drafts
to have a mailing list discussion on how any new proposal
affects/impacts/relates to the already accepted WG documents. On a personal
level, I feel such a discussion is needed to provide due respect to the
hours of productive discussions time (IETF meetings/Design meetings and
Interims) that went in to accept the proposals by the WG.

>From the chairs perspective, typically one would want to prioritize the
progress of accepted WG documents thus ensuring the WG works on the open
issues to get them to completion.  At the same time, we should be open to
proposals for those open issues, to help make such a progress possible and
having a mailing list discussion would help in this regard.

As requested by Nils, the chairs looks forward to having productive
discussions on the concerns raised during the last interim.

---

From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:09:50 +0200

El 7/6/2017 6:13, "Suhas Nandakumar" <[email-masked]> escribió:

Hello Sergio

[Suhas] I don't think it is unfair for chairs to ask the authors of drafts
to have a mailing list discussion on how any new proposal
affects/impacts/relates to the already accepted WG documents.

No, it is unfair for chairs to block that discussion from taking place and
then rejecting the proposal because there has been no discussion.

On a personal level, I feel such a discussion is needed to provide due
respect to the hours of productive discussions time (IETF meetings/Design
meetings and Interims) that went in to accept the proposals by the WG.

I feel that this is needed also and I am more than willing to discuss them,
and solve any issue that may raise, having sent several emails to the list,
written a document with extend proposal and provided slides to try to
explain it.

If the chairs feel that anything more specific needs to be done, please ask
me and I will provide.

Regards
Sergio