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

Re: Accept hain/templin draft as wg item?



Måns Nilsson wrote:
> 
> --On Friday, August 22, 2003 14:35:15 -0700 Fred Templin
> <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> > Folks - do we have consensus to accept this document as an
> > IPv6 wg item (see below)?
> 
> It smells of something we've already decided to reject (not as draft but as
> idea.) so I am for accepting it as a wg item in order to be able to kill it
> again.

Er, what on earth are you talking about? On the contrary, this draft is an
attempt to express what we need in place of the existing definition of SL.
That is what we've been discussing for the last many months. Tony and Fred
have written it down. I'm grateful to them and I fully support this becoming
a WG draft at this time. 

I do agree to replacing the R-word. Some people in the IETF seem to over
interpret "requirements" so we should use some other word such as "goals."

Keith Moore wrote:
> 
> > > >>Folks - do we have consensus to accept this document as an IPv6 wg
> > > >>item (see below)?
> > > >
> > > >what does it mean to do this?
> >
> > As with all working group documents, it means that the resulting text will
> > be something the working group has reached concensus on as worth
> > publication. It does not mean that the existing text will be published as an
> > RFC under the IPv6 WG name, but that it moves from being personal drafts
> > where some might not be paying attention, to a draft-ipv6 name.
> 
> in that case, I don't think we should accept this as a WG document -
> at least, not at this time.

I think you're missing the point of the word "resulting" above. Obviously,
what would get published as an RFC would not be the current draft. It would
be whatever it turns into after WG discussion. If we don't accept this
draft, someone is going to have to write another one, and we waste yet more
time.

> 
> I do accept it as valuable input, though not all input to a WG should be
> published as an RFC.  Sometimes we publish valuable input for the historical
> record, and that's a good thing to do as long as it's properly labelled.  The
> time to decide on publication for that reason should be after the group has
> reached consensus on technical mechanisms.

Yes. But that is nothing to do with accepting this draft as a WG draft. The
way to make progress is to start with this draft and improve it.

Leif Johansson wrote:
> 
> Tony Hain wrote:
> 
> >Leif Johansson wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'd also like an answer to this question.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >As with all working group documents, it means that the resulting text will
> >be something the working group has reached concensus on as worth
> >
> I don't believe that it is possible to turn the current draft into a
> requirements
> document which does not assume the outcome. 

Perhaps that is because there is only one class of solution that
meets these important goals. If you have an alternative statement
of goals that leads to a different class of solution, please
publish your own draft.

> Given your reply to my question
> I oppose the publication of this draft as a wg document.

I think you too have missed the point. Accepting this as
a WG draft is not the same thing as agreeing to publish it as an
RFC. It is merely using it as the starting point. (It is true that
unless the people who disagree send their own alternative text, the
draft won't change...)
> 
> >publication. It does not mean that the existing text will be published as an
> >RFC under the IPv6 WG name, but that it moves from being personal drafts
> >where some might not be paying attention, to a draft-ipv6 name.
> >
> >
> >
> Imo, you are wrong about the merit of wg status. There are several examples
> in the IETF of good work beeing done as individual submission drafts.
> Its not
> the filename, its what you write that matters.

That isn't the point here. We are halfway through the process of deprecating
SL and designing a replacement. That's by definition a WG activity. We have
a draft set of goals on the table - one draft set of goals - and until 
someobody produces an alternative set of goals, those goals are the ones
I'm looking at. 

   Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------