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

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On April 16, 2020 at 3:17:38 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:


Greg:

Hi!

Answering only the parts about the document states.  The decision
about the document itself is up to the WG.


...
See rfc6174: Definition of IETF Working Group Document States


> 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.

>From §4.2.6:

   A "Dead WG Document" is an I-D that has been abandoned.  Note that
   'Dead' is not always a final state for a WG I-D.  If consensus is
   subsequently achieved, a "Dead WG Document" may be resurrected.  A
   "Dead WG Document" that is not resurrected will eventually expire.

Given that all drafts are now archived regardless of the state, it
will still be available.  I believe that a document will show up in
the datatracker while not expired.


> 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?

Having a draft (any draft) as an Informative reference shouldn't be a
showstopper for publication.

However, if the reference is used to justify the need for a specific
solution or to point at specific requirements, then someone could
question the "abandoned" nature of the work, and whether the document
reflects the consensus of the WG.


> 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.

Not publishing a support document like this one is in line with the
IESG statement about Support Documents in IETF Working Groups [1].  As
the responsible AD, not publishing is perfectly fine with me.


Following Tony's suggestion of WGLCing the document...  If the WG
wants to be able to reference this draft in the future, the WGLC
should explicitly consider that question (along with the others Tony
mentioned).  The current version doesn't have to be the final version
of the document and the WG is able (if there's interest) to keep
working on it -- just like any other document.

If the WG decides to keep the draft as reference material, a more
appropriate status may be "Adopted for WG Info Only" or simply "WG
Document".  From rfc6174:

===
4.2.3.  Adopted for WG Info Only

   The "Adopted for WG Info Only" state describes a document that
   contains useful information for the WG that adopted it, but the
   document is not intended to be published as an RFC.  The WG will not
   actively develop the contents of the I-D or progress it for
   publication as an RFC.  The only purpose of the I-D is to provide
   information for internal use by the WG.

4.2.4.  WG Document

   The "WG Document" state describes an I-D that has been adopted by an
   IETF WG and is being actively developed.
===


Alvaro.


[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/support-documents/