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

["Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)" <[e-mail]>]

Alia –

It is not that I strongly object to the new behavior – it just seems a bit odd.

The document gets adopted by the WG – that clearly requires some level of support.
The document then gets presented – often multiple times – and undergoes multiple revisions – each of which is based on feedback received.
Once the authors/chairs believe the document is mature last call is requested.

For all the folks who have participated in the review of the document the work is done and clearly there has been interest in the work – an inspection of the WG archives reveals that.

I don’t know of any document that goes to last call w/o any comment whatsoever during the time it is a WG doc. If that is the case I would think the chairs are justified in saying there is no reason to go to last call because no work has been done on the document post becoming a WG item.
If you want evidence of review it should be found in the WG archives – not in a statement in response to last call.

I have always interpreted last call as an opportunity for folks who believe the document is not yet mature to say so – but instead it seems  to be used as a way of verifying that there is actually interest in the document – which is too late and too perfunctory for my tastes.

   Les


From: Alia Atlas [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 1:44 PM
To: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg)
Cc: Christian Hopps; ISIS-WG
Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] More support? Re: WG Last Call for draft-ietf-isis-sbfd-discriminator-02

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]<mailto:[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]<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]<mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Christian
> > Hopps
> > Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 3:31 AM
> > To: ISIS-WG
> > Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Isis-wg mailing list
> > [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg