Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-simple-va

[Ronald Bonica <[e-mail]>]

Robert,

These drafts are unique in my experience as an AD. 

The WG Last Call appears to have occurred in the 14 days following July 29, 2010. I don't see any firm conclusion to that last call. The closest thing to a conclusion that I see is the following message in which Paul Francis encourages the chairs to interpret silence as consent:

- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg01748.html

However, the chairs are silent. On March 17, 2011, I see the following messages from Wes George:

- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg01851.html
- http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/grow/current/msg01850.html

Because the authors are still seeking review seven months after the WG Last Call, I infer that the July 29 Last Call was inconclusive. (Otherwise, why would they still be seeking review?)

I have no clear indication that consensus was called until March, 2012 when the chairs sent the drafts to me for publication. However, because the WG was mostly silent regarding these drafts between March 2011 and March 2012, I have no idea what events caused consensus to be called.

Because the WG Last Call process was so irregular, I asked about WG interest and received a tepid response. As I recall, only one positive response posted by a non-author.

So, how do we proceed? If you want to demonstrate WG support of draft-ietf-grow-simple-va, let the WG LC proceed. If you want to publish without demonstrating WG support, I would be glad to AD sponsor that draft.

However, I have reservations about AD sponsoring draft-ietf-grow-va because of the negative response I received regarding that draft when I queried the mailing list. I would really be much more comfortable if that draft went through another IETF last call.

                                    Ron

P.S. BTW, the short answer to your question is that these drafts are receiving more scrutiny because the WG Last Call process was so irregular.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Raszuk [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 4:21 PM
> To: Ronald Bonica
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [GROW] draft-ietf-grow-simple-va
> 
> Ronald,
> 
> This document as proven in my last email with real number got
> sufficient attention already and there is no need for another last
> call.
> 
> Please explain why those documents require more community support then
> other documents issued as RFCs in the GROW WG.
> 
> The quote below was to evaluate what others understand by "sufficient
> community support".
> 
> R.
> 
> > If we
> >> think that we should move the discussion to ietf-interest or similar
> >> bigger alias to discuss what community support for a given work in
> >> IETF really means I will be happy to do that.
> >>
> >> Best regards, R.
> >>
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > This is a pretty good idea!
> >
> > So, I would ask the chairs to post another WG last call on both
> > documents. In the last call, please mention that we are looking to
> > gage community interest, so silence  will not be interpreted as
> > consent.
> >
> > Robert, would you be willing to call attention to the last call on
> > whatever mailing lists you think appropriate. The list [e-mail]
> > leaps to mind, but you might think of others, too.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >