Re: [mpls] COnsensus call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-requirements - Working Group Last Call closed

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

On 25/10/2016 03:40, Loa Andersson wrote:
> Working Group,
>
>
> Our AD and the IESG recommend working in parallel with requirements
> and solutions.  The fact is that have been no drafts on solutions.
> Once there is reasonable progress on a solutions document we can
> proceed.

This change of policy by the IESG is something that I think needs wider 
discussion.

Sometimes this is right, but other times it is useful to establish the 
requirements
in the absence of a decision on the solution to harden the foundations 
of the
project.

It is not uncommon for people to game the requirements to give the edge
to their preferred solution. In these circumstances, taking an objective
look at the requirements and freezing them through publication can help.
Also in some cases there may be a matter of IESG policy that needs to be
frozen before important decisions in the solution can be made.

Now I am not sure that this applies to this specific case, but I am worried
about this new IESG policy preventing WGs approaching their problems
in the manner that best suits each problem.

Perhaps a discussion for the open meeting?

Stewart