Re: [mpls] Closed: MPLS Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

Joel,

You are right, I'm listed as an author for e.g. 
"draft-song-mpls-extension-header", whether there is a conflict of 
interest when it comes to shepherding the 
draft-ietf-mpls-mna-requirements I'm not entirely clear over.

I have asked chairs to discuss this in their meeting 2023-10-24.

/Loa

On 2023-10-17 19:44, Joel Halpern wrote:
> There seems to be a statement in this email that Loa, as chair, is 
> asserting that we have a rough consensus on the need for a PSD 
> solution.   As far as I know, that has not been asked, nor judged.  As 
> far as I know, we were discussing whether there are use cases that 
> demonstrate a sufficient need for PSD.
> 
> I also note that ass Loa is a co-author on a PSD proposal, I woul dhope 
> to see any chair ruling on such a matter from the other two MPLS chairs.
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Joel M. Halpern
> 
> On 10/17/2023 1:29 PM, Loa Andersson wrote:
>> Adrian,
>>
>> Inline plz.
>>
>> On 2023-10-17 12:46, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>>> Hi Loa, all,
>>>
>>>> This working group last call is now closed.
>>>>
>>>> The MPLS working group chairs believe that WGLC reflects a consensus
>>>> to progress the document
>>>
>>> To be clear, you are declaring me in the rough when I said "A few 
>>> comments
>>> below that indicate, I think, that this work is not yet stable."
>>> I appreciate that the authors will, as part of the WGLC resolution 
>>> process,
>>> attempt to address and respond to my comments, but claiming the current
>>> situation as consensus to progress would be a bit like me saying 
>>> "Every word
>>> in this document should be different" and you saying "We have 
>>> consensus to
>>> publish this document once every word has been changed."
>>
>> I don't quite understand what you are saying, I said "progress the 
>> document", but the intent was not to send it to the IESG for 
>> publication, rather the intent to direct the work with reviewers, the 
>> rest of the working group to post a new version of the document that 
>> we can working group last call in a not to distant future.
>>>
>>> When comments and questions are minor, the reviewer may say "I agree to
>>> publication once my issues have been addressed." When comments are 
>>> many or
>>> major, the reviewer may say "I don't think this work is stable" and, 
>>> in that
>>> case, I think that the normal process is to discuss and revise, at 
>>> the end
>>> of which the reviewer may say, "I'm OK now" (and the chairs can call
>>> consensus) or a further WGLC will be required. You did indicate, in your
>>> email, that you might trigger a second WGLC, in which case I think you
>>> probably agree that you don't have consensus yet.
>>
>> This tricky, and I might misuse the terminology, I used the rough 
>> consensus to indicate two things
>>
>> - we have a consensus to continue working on the document
>> - we have a consensus to include PSD in the requirments
>>>
>>> I also think that no one addressed my comment
>>>      I'm not sure that it is really
>>>      necessary to publish this work as an RFC, and I think we should be
>>>      careful to make the requirements rigid while we are still 
>>> working on
>>>      use cases and solutions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to 
>>> reach
>>>      agreement, but that we should be flexible to allow the creation 
>>> of new
>>>      requirements or the clarification of what we have documented.
>>>      Publication of an RFC at this stage might be too set in stone.
>>
>> I think there was at least one comment saying that they thought an MNA 
>> requirement is important, and over the years I have had ADs that time 
>> and again said "show me the requirements". But if the resolution of 
>> this comment is that we don't want the IESG to publish this document 
>> so be it, it is still important when we discuss which solutions we 
>> will develop.
>>>
>>> But perhaps you consider that in the rough, too. With respect to 
>>> this, you
>>> did say in another email "As for the rest of your mail I will bring 
>>> it to
>>> the MNA chairs meeting 2023-10-03 for discussion." But I don't 
>>> believe I saw
>>> any follow-up to this.
>>
>> That discussion was overtaken by other things arising from this 
>> sometimes frustrating discussion.
>>
>> /Loa
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 
Loa Andersson                        email: [e-mail]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [e-mail]
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: [phone]