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

[Marc Binderberger <[e-mail]>]

Hello Les, Alia, Christian et al.,

first: I still do support the document :-) and think it should move on 
towards RFC.


Then: I see the points made by Les and Alia but at the end the "fail" is on 
the supporter side - it's just a quick "I support" email. Yes, I'm guilty too 
(and yes, nobody wants to hear my excuse :-)


Regards, Marc



On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 00:31:04 +0000, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) 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
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg