Re: [Bier] status of draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements

Hi Tony, Greg, et al.,
thank you for the most detailed explanation of the state of this document
and where it can go from here. I believe that the document is an important
part of the overall work on the OAM toolset in BIER. As that work is not
yet complete the publication of the draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements would
help those interested in further developing BIER OAM. On the other hand, to
the best of my understanding and please correct me if I'm wrong here, the
headstone saying "Dead WG Document" would not remove it from the list of
documents on BIER WG page and it can be easily accessed by anyone
interested to read. Also, would marking it as "Dead WG Document" affect the
progress of solution-proposing drafts that use
draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements as an informational reference? If there
will be no negative impact, then I'd conclude with "it would be nice to
publish but the other way is okay too". I hope I didn't confuse you all.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:42 AM Tony Przygienda <tonysietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear BIER WG participants, situation of
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements/ is
> unsatisfactory at this point in time.
>
> The draft was adopted around 2015 but did not elicit any comments or
> significant technical changes for the 5 years following or during the WGLC
> (which was bundled with 2 other drafts on top). Only activity were some
> private discussions among the authors as to the content of the authors
> list. A shepherd was assigned quite a while ago, no write-down was provided
> and no activity was seen. Given that the response to authors as to their
> participation and call for two volunteers to act as editors met with, ehem,
> underwhelming response, it looks like we may be flogging a dead horse
> forward here towards publication.
>
> Hence, I would suggest that we call a WG LC consensus again to gauge the
> interest on this draft. We will need multiple people across multiple
> organizations explaining support with more than just "+1" mail and
> obviously having read the draft and ideally commenting why they think this
> draft is WGLC ready & should be published. On top I suggest that we need
> the shepherd to read/comment on the draft. If we get that together then the
> document should be forwarded towards IESG (with diminished authors' list
> per latest feedbacks given) or otherwise we move it to "Dead WG Document"
> status and we may warm it up in the future should the interest perk up.
>
> Opinions? Otherwise the according calls will go to the list in next couple
> days ...
>
> thanks
>
> --- tony
> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> BIER@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>