Re: [eman] WG documents adoption

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bill,
> Benoit,
>
> You have stressed the following a couple of times now:
>
>      Note that, if a document becomes a WG item, the open issues discussed
> will have to be
>      solved based on the group consensus.
>
> Since I am new to the IETF I am unfamiliar with the actual implications of
> this statement.  Could you perhaps explain a bit more about what this means
> in practice for those who are less familiar with the nuances of IETF customs
> and procedures?
>
> I assume that adoption is done by group consensus and that future changes
> will be done by group consensus so I am confused about what is different
> between now and after adoption.
When a document is an individual draft, you can give comments to the 
authors, but it's up to the authors to address them.
When a document is a WG item, the document belongs to the WG. As such, 
all comments should be addressed, based on the WG consensus.

> Does proposing changes or alternatives
> become somehow more difficult after these have been adopted?
That's the reverse: it should be easier, as the authors should at least 
respond to your comments.
> I am just
> asking for clarification for the benefit of myself and possibly others on
> the list.
Sure.
> I have provided some comments on the Requirements document but have not
> heard back from Juergen as to whether the points I raised could be
> addressed, or not, and some of these possibly had implications for the
> framework / architecture document as well.
>
> One example would be my request or suggestion that the references to IPFIX
> be removed from the proposed requirements and that this issue be resolved
> within the Architecture document.  I have concerns about the IETF EMAN
> standard referencing IPFIX as being a required technology for a standards
> conforming solution.  I understand the desire to have this approach
> recognized as a standards conforming approach and I believe that this can be
> easily accomodated in some way within the reference Architecture, but most
> likely this will need to be considered an optional part of the standard and
> not a required one.  I say this because acceptable management alternatives
> for the efficient transfer of time series data are certainly possible and I
> would like to see the standard accomodate those alternatives and not mandate
> a specific solution as is currently being proposed.
>
> So with respect to your statement above, is this something that could
> customarily be easily addressed after adoption of Juergen's proposed
> requirements
yes exactly.
> or is this something that would be best handled as an alternate
> proposal/draft to Juergen's which is put forward prior to the adoption of
> either of the two alternatives?
>
> I just wish to understand the customary processes in this case to establish
> some shared expectations on moving things forward.  I don't expect that even
> in my current example that the group cannot come to some appropriate
> agreement to address the concerns of all.
Btw, this specific issue of IPFIX was discussed in the context of the 
EMAN architecture, and I remembered that the feedback received was in 
favor of not mentioning IPFIX in the architecture, but at the same time, 
not preclude this potential adoption in the future.

A common good practice for document authors is to include a TO DO 
section at the beginning of each document, listing the points that need 
further discussion.

Regards, Benoit.
> Thanks,
>
> William F. Mielke
> Alcatel-Lucent
> Distinguished Member of Technical Staff
> 6200 East Broad Street
> Room: 4B01-1V
> Columbus, OH  43213-1530
> Email: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Phone: [phone]
> Fax: [phone]
>
> "Live like you're going to die tomorrow.
>   Learn like you're going to live forever."
>
>      - Albert Einstein
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Benoit Claise
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 6:20 AM
> To: eman mailing list
> Subject: Re: [eman] WG documents adoption
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Since they were no objections, we asked the authors to publish the 3 drafts
> below as EMAN WG documents.
>
> Regards, Bruce and Benoit.
>
>
> 	Dear all,
> 	
> 	From the meeting minutes at:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/minutes/eman.txt, we would like to stress
> the following
> 	
> 	draft-quittek-power-monitoring-requirements-02
> 	
>
> 		Chair asked if the sense of the room was that this should be
> made a
> 		working group draft. No objections. Take to the list.
> 		
>
>
> 	draft-claise-power-management-arch-02
> 	
>
> 		Chair asked if the sense of the room was that this should be
> made a
> 		working group draft. No objections. Take to the list.
> 		
>
>
> 	draft-parello-eman-energy-aware-mib-00
> 	
>
> 		Chair asked if the sense of the room was that this should be
> made a
> 		working group draft. No objections. Take to the list.
> 		
>
> 	If you object any of the documents becoming a WG item, let us know.
> 	Note that, if a document becomes a WG item, the open issues
> discussed will have to be solved based on the group consensus.
> 	
> 	Regards, Bruce and Benoit
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	eman mailing list
> 	[e-mail]
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
> 	
>
>