Re: [dna] [DNA] DNA working group completion

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Fri, 16 October 2009 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Original-To: dna@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dna@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E053A6884 for <dna@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZMa6BqlEoti for <dna@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DD4C3A67AA for <dna@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B45F9D4936; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:55:39 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2-UgALbcLUYM; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:55:38 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE1FD4904; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:55:37 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4AD8EBD9.7060008@piuha.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:55:37 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
References: <25156_1255687743_4AD8463E_25156_5479872_1_4AD84605.8050903@piuha.net> <2972_1255728734_4AD8E65E_2972_3663297_1_4AD8E5C6.4070603@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <2972_1255728734_4AD8E65E_2972_3663297_1_4AD8E5C6.4070603@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: DNA <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>, "dna@ietf.org" <dna@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dna] [DNA] DNA working group completion
X-BeenThere: dna@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNA working group mailing list <dna.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna>, <mailto:dna-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dna>
List-Post: <mailto:dna@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dna-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna>, <mailto:dna-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:55:36 -0000

Suresh,

> One thing I would like to be different is to progress the WG items 
> (tentative and informational protocol) as WG documents to the IESG 
> (as-is) immediately and then close the WG down. I feel that these 
> documents have gone through a lot of working group review in their 
> lifetime and by treating them as individual submissions they would 
> appear to be immature and not adequately reviewed. Any followup can be 
> done on the mailing list. What do you think?

I don't think individual submissions imply that the documents are 
immature. The reviewers need to understand the history and status of 
each document in any case, be it from the working group or individual.

However, I don't that matters much. Nor does it matter how many years 
they have been in the process. What matters is whether the said 
documents are ready. Are they? As ready as the simple DNA document is?

Jari