Re: [Isis-wg] More support? Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Les,

It's all too common for interest in a draft to peak at WG adoption.
Particularly if there hasn't been much active discussion, it is very useful
to
know that a draft has gotten significant review, is still needed, and is
ready to be published.

Having clear evidence of WG consensus at WGLC assures that the work is
still needed and ready.

There are some drafts where publication is requested and one wonders if
anyone
has fully read the draft or just looked at diffs.

Hope that helps,
Alia

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Some additional context here...
>
> My remarks regarding expectations of support during last call are not
> specifically aimed at the SBFD draft nor the IS-IS WG. I see this change of
> behavior across multiple WGs and I am wondering why?
> Some enlightenment from the ADs would be appreciated.
>
>    Les
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Isis-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Les
> Ginsberg
> > (ginsberg)
> > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 7:57 AM
> > To: Christian Hopps; ISIS-WG
> > Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] More support? Re: WG Last Call for
> draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-
> > discriminator-02
> >
> > FWIW...
> >
> > I support this as co-author.
> >
> > But, it also seems relevant to comment on what seems to be a "behavior
> > change".
> >
> > In the past, expressions of support were expected when asking if a
> > document should be made a WG item. However, once that happened, when
> > a last call was issued it was only expected that folks should express
> > reservations if they had any. Expressions of support for last call were
> not
> > expected because it was assumed that since the WG had already been
> > actively working on the document since it became a WG item support was
> > implicit.
> >
> > Now however it seems that there is an expectation that despite all of the
> > history of the document post WG acceptance folks are supposed to once
> > again say "Yes I support this".
> > When did this behavior change and could the chairs and/or the ADs explain
> > why the change was made?
> >
> > Thanx.
> >
> >    Les
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Isis-wg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christian
> > > Hopps
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:31 AM
> > > To: ISIS-WG
> > > Cc: [e-mail]
> > > Subject: [Isis-wg] More support? Re: WG Last Call for
> > > draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-
> > > discriminator-02
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > far there's not been much public indication of support for this draft.
> > > It did clear WG last call and we can move it forward on the belief
> > > that everyone is quietly accepting it; however, I would prefer it if a
> > > few more people could be vocal in their support of the document.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chris.
> > >
> > > Christian Hopps <[e-mail]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > We are starting a WG Last Call on the following draft.
> > > >
> > > > “Advertising S-BFD Discriminators in IS-IS”
> > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator/
> > > >
> > > > The LC is set to expire 3 weeks from now (allowing for common
> > > > vacation
> > > > time) on Friday, September 4th, 2015.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Chris & Hannes.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Isis-wg mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Isis-wg mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> > _______________________________________________
> > Isis-wg mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>