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

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Dear Tony and Greg,
could you kindly check the updates in the attached copy of the draft or in
the diff, and let Santosh and I know if they are according to your
instructions.

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 9:43 AM Tony Przygienda <[e-mail]> wrote:

> <chair hat on>
>
> So, please note well that after some discussion here, this constitutes the
> official re-issue of last call for draft
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements/
>
> The necessary output to continue with WGLC & IESG process is having
> multiple people across multiple organizations explaining support with more
> than just "+1" (ideally explaining the reason the work should be published
> as BIER WG document) and obviously having read the draft.
>
> The draft gained another editor.
>
> As to authors, Carlos removes himself from the author's list. This and
> both editors changing should be reflected in next published version,
> please.
>
> Editors, please ping the shepherd for an according write-down as well with
> her take on the draft which will present a valuable input to this last
> call.
>
> In case the last call does not gather enough support, the draft will move
> to either "Dead WG Document" or "Adopted for WG Info Only" status which
> will be discussed out then.
>
> This LC expires on Fri, May 15th
>
> thanks
>
> -- tony
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 1:43 PM Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/
>>
>