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

[Ayan Banerjee <[e-mail]>]

Support as well.

Thanks,
Ayan

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Marc Binderberger <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
>