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

[Alia Atlas <[e-mail]>]

Les,

It's frequently a final effort to determine whether and how much interest
there
really is in the draft.  Adoption and WGLC can be separated by quite some
time.
Some drafts show good discussion and support all along the process - and
some
seem to have fallen into deep black holes.  Discussion and support and
reviews
(even of the "I read this and it was good" variety) are all preferable -
but what does
a WG Chair do when those haven't really happened but the draft is ready?

I would note that I (and I believe the other ADs) haven't specifically
pushed for
this.  What we have done is encourage our WG Chairs to think about what
judging consensus and looking for an active consensus is like.  You might
find reading RFC 7282 interesting.  We did a Routing Area WG chair training
on
it about a year ago (
http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/WGChairTraining )
that might be interesting.

Regards,
Alia

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> 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]> 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
>
>
>