IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Lime] IETF96 LIME *Draft* minutes

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 22 July 2016 12:01 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lime@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B8312DB61 for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 05:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PknUnVqhT6-G for <lime@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 05:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CA6B12DB43 for <lime@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 05:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6MC1qv7006316; Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:01:52 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b05f.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.176.95]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u6MC1pC5006285 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:01:52 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)'" <cpignata@cisco.com>, lime@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 13:01:52 +0100
Message-ID: <0a4901d1e410$d6fe1340$84fa39c0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AdHkEIFKt1W+1kTlRFCWOhFu3heYgQ==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22466.006
X-TM-AS-Result: No--16.979-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--16.979-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 8+bhjh9TQnG6ocC+hcN//KZCFtxq3n99SskMUlXWCWyqvcIF1TcLYAvc +0N8mwVhlS2zL9WB/LHyXH6dEQg1mmlm2w5uC3SGM0pZiLPQITre/DVpWKI5Ky6PLFEfB74cK8y KokLeF7xsXumiKAf5w9anx1RXMheulVIFRFMViNAnD9HvJUxB88p78QjMhcwYVUwmVL0cK7OOvP 1tocpB880yieY+jIy1EMPYLJ3Ibr3d4/PB4aHRjZVRzPxemJL0v8jdqvFOu+Lz3/LbT6RtdxFlw JhVcSVOwfebomI2A/0A6QXCV6EStmQexWkOikPfQr2qXCJMSV8lg8xWQ8SoKczvOkSymob/Olt9 1MBw1ebnzlXMYw4XMIGsNX5eg/aOVnRXm1iHN1bEQdG7H66TyH4gKq42LRYk6SBCYs5Ve1yd11J IXk00PxZp3b8RJ7z6xzL0dzFJw8Z+3BndfXUhXQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lime/Hc3Fc7AfEVmItbUXe8Wd7yAep9g>
Subject: Re: [Lime] IETF96 LIME *Draft* minutes
X-BeenThere: lime@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: "Layer Independent OAM Management in Multi-Layer Environment \(LIME\) discussion list." <lime.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lime/>
List-Post: <mailto:lime@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime>, <mailto:lime-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 12:02:00 -0000

Hi Carlos,

I read the minutes (unable to be in the room for the meeting).

Looking at the data tracker I see for draft-kumar-lime-yang-connectionless-oam
> 2016-03-02 00 Carlos Pignataro IETF WG state changed to Candidate for WG Adoption 

I note from the minutes that you seem to be "close" to taking this to the list as a question, and I wonder if you could explain the delay. Is there a different document that might be a candidate? Is there a question about whether this is in scope of the charter? Has anyone suggested that the document is so badly broken that the WG cannot fix it?

My concerns are: 
- If the document is outside the WG, the WG has no significant ability to
   influence the content. Once it is a WG document, the WG can dictate
   the content.
- Continued delay in adopting the document is reducing the interest and
   enthusiasm for the work as people wonder what the point is if there 
   is never going to be a WG draft.

So I would like to call on you and Ron to move ahead rapidly and adopt this document so that we can all work on it and turn it into a quality RFC.

[Obviously, it is up to you how you run the WG, but when something is clearly a WG deliverable and when there is a single candidate draft, you are within the rules to simply adopt it leaving the WG to work on the content rather than to debate the process.]

Thanks,
Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lime [mailto:lime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Carlos Pignataro
> (cpignata)
> Sent: 22 July 2016 01:52
> To: lime@ietf.org
> Subject: [Lime] IETF96 LIME *Draft* minutes
> 
> LIME,
> 
> Thank you for a very productive meeting in Berlin!
> 
> Please find below our *draft* meeting minutes, with many thanks to Ignas
> Bagdonas for very detailed and clear notes!
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-lime
> 
> Please send any corrections to the list.
> 
> You can also find the full meeting proceedings at
> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/lime.html
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> — Carlos.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lime mailing list
> Lime@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lime

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email