Re: [CCAMP] draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module again

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Martin, Benoit,

i can't force the WG to review a draft (even if we got feedbacks last time and we just had another reply from Haomian earlier today).
What I can say is that there are more chances to have the working group review a ccamp draft than a netmod draft and even more if the draft is presented during a meeting.

BR
Daniele  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: lunedì 9 ottobre 2017 16:15
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>; Martin Bjorklund
> <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module again
> 
> Daniele,
> 
> I'm with Martin here. Can we please focus on having the right content and
> the right feedback, before focusing on the process.
> 
> Regards, Benoit
> > Martin,
> >
> > published in CCAMP means to publish it as: draft-vallin-ccamp-alarm-
> module, i.e. an individual contribution in CCAMP, showing up on CCAMP
> page, not a CCAMP WG draft.
> >
> > We never spoke of a straight adoption without any WG polling, IPR
> declarations and so on.
> > Both the Netmod chairs and the routing AD said in their opinion the draft
> should have been moved to CCAMP and the authors have been copied in all
> of the email exchanges.
> >
> > BR
> > Daniele (not speaking for both the CCAMP chairs)
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: lunedì 9 ottobre 2017 15:40
> >> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module again
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Martin,
> >>>
> >>> what was agreed was to have the draft re-published as a CCAMP draft
> >>> and then presented at IETF99 during the CCAMP session.
> >> Ok, but this was not communicated to the authors.  See the email that
> >> I quoted in my last email, to which I never got a reply.
> >>
> >> Re. re-publishing as CCAMP draft, doesn't the WG first have to
> >> formally adopt it?  Maybe the process is different in other WGs, but
> >> I'm used to a process where the WG first review the document, then
> adopt it.
> >>
> >>> Since none of the two things happened it is quite difficult to have
> >>> people in CCAMP noticing it, reviewing it and providing comments.
> >> The draft is out there (the individual version), and we would still
> >> appreciate feedback on the content!
> >>
> >>
> >> /martin
> >>
> >>
> >>> BR
> >>> Daniele
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Martin
> >>>> Bjorklund
> >>>> Sent: lunedì 9 ottobre 2017 11:14
> >>>> To: [e-mail]
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: [CCAMP] draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module again
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> We have received quite a lot of emails indicating support for the
> >>>> draft "draft- vallin-netmod-alarm-module".  People are asking why
> >>>> nothing happens with this draft.
> >>>>
> >>>> It was decided that CCAMP might be the best place for this draft,
> >>>> but since then people have expressed that they rather want NETMOD
> >>>> to
> >> work on it.
> >>>> I sent this email to CCAMP but never got any feedback:
> >>>>
> >>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/f4qUNkpsT5dVF_1l9Ibd3hH1
> >>>> Y
> >>>> A4/?qid=2187bb6a3443f12d15a29a03486f0754
> >>>>
> >>>> It would be much appreciated if anyone in CCAMP that are also
> >>>> working on the generic alarm functionality in ITU could send
> >>>> feedback on
> >> this document.
> >>>> The document can be found here:
> >>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vallin-netmod-alarm-module
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> /martin
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> CCAMP mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> > .
> >