[Detnet] Process question: (was : Re: 1st stage of WG adoption poll: draft-dt-detnet-dp-sol)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 20 July 2017 12:08 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: detnet@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 662B112EA7C for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CJgmemvTALyQ for <detnet@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:08:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45903126E3A for <detnet@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 05:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw4 (unknown [10.0.90.85]) by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53571E0F4B for <detnet@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 06:08:38 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id n08b1v01M2SSUrH0108eTv; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 06:08:38 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=eYdNR/MH c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=G3gG6ho9WtcA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=HJjxPJY-qe4RB1vtaQEA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Yz9wTY_ffGCQnEDHKrcv:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=z9FsMkaunbQUh5XjXwBbTiOkriWMUhyaApB3b/ncEpw=; b=hFnwLChpHkDikya2dWaO4z+tvd 0y6qPbFG7gIbrx6ZubDmIQho2UOUflxbPNgL3eyhtsrv5eeJX5bvz6HENccQymuTfbZWt3EAOSsEu wsQXA51CHsO+A3ZoCL91CJXcr;
Received: from pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.84.20]:44952 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1dYAFv-002dy6-Ma; Thu, 20 Jul 2017 06:08:35 -0600
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
Cc: DetNet WG <detnet@ietf.org>
References: <be3ed0c9-ff8d-5108-bb00-5b79c089b0d3@labn.net> <A724A679-D5E9-4EDC-A9FD-66A5E2DBFB62@gmail.com>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <2f46b35b-c996-c6d9-1068-ff1c8c6f1d61@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 14:08:33 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A724A679-D5E9-4EDC-A9FD-66A5E2DBFB62@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.84.20
X-Exim-ID: 1dYAFv-002dy6-Ma
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.84.20]:44952
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 2
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/detnet/trwWF1GU24cv8caYZkCCGBcJmNI>
Subject: [Detnet] Process question: (was : Re: 1st stage of WG adoption poll: draft-dt-detnet-dp-sol)
X-BeenThere: detnet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <detnet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/detnet/>
List-Post: <mailto:detnet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet>, <mailto:detnet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 12:08:43 -0000

Stewart,

    I'm not sure what process is non-standard.  We have had a DT formed
and run according to BCP 25, section 6.5. At this point, per formal
process, the WG chairs *could* just take the DT output as a WG
document.  We (chairs) don't think that is would be a good idea and want
to ensure that we have general WG support for *starting* our standard
and typical WG processes with the DT output.  Once we have a WG draft,
its contents would of course be controlled by the WG. 

In today's meeting, we heard concerns that a -00 WG document could be
interpreted by some as indicating a direction that they have concerns
about or disagree with, and therefore they would object to its
publication.  We also discussed that capturing objections in the
individual draft would be sufficient to address these concerns (at least
for some).  To ensure that all had an opportunity to have their issues
and concerns captured, the chairs agreed to explicitly solicit the WG,
on list, for items/topics to be captured.

At this point, I hope you (and others) will send the issues/topics you'd
like to see addressed in the WG document.  When doing so, please reply
to the original message.

Please use this new subject line/thread to follow up with any process
related discussion.

Cheers,
Lou

On 7/20/2017 12:36 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> Lou,
>
> Shouldn't you first get WG agreement to run a non-standard process?
>
> Stewart
>
>> On 20 Jul 2017, at 12:00 pm, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> In this morning sessions we discussed a two stage adoption call for the
>> proposed data plane solution:
>>
>> - in the first stage we collect issues with the -01 individual draft
>> that WG members would like to see addressed as part of the normal WG
>> processing of the document.  These issues will then be captured in -02
>> rev of the individual draft.
>>
>> - The second stage will be the normal WG adoption process
>>
>> This message initiates the first stage of adoption.  In this stage we'd
>> like to collect technical issues to be captured in the -01 draft. 
>> Specifically, if you have an issue with the draft please:
>>
>> (a) if an issue with a particular section or sections, please identify
>> the section(s) and summarize the issue to be captured in the -02 rev of
>> the draft (your text may be copied verbatim or paraphrased/summarized), or
>>
>> (b) if not section specific, identify the general issue you'd like to
>> see captured in an "open issues" section.  Again, your text may be
>> copied verbatim, paraphrased or summarized.
>>
>> Please send comments in the next 3 weeks, no later than Thursday, August 10.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Pat and Lou
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> detnet mailing list
>> detnet@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
> _______________________________________________
> detnet mailing list
> detnet@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/detnet
>