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

["BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stewart,

You may have missed the earlier mails and discussion on this thread. Rolf has summarized accurately that Loa's mail is referring to this draft and not to a policy change.

Thanks,
Deborah

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 9:28 AM
> To: Rolf Winter <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; <[e-mail]>
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [mpls] COnsensus call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-
> requirements - Working Group Last Call closed
> 
> Hi Rolf
> 
> It needs further discussion if chairs have drafts rejected out of policy
> rather than on a case by case basis.
> 
> My understanding of Loa's comment is that policy is the high order bit.
> 
> Maybe the RTG ADs can provide some guidelines?
> 
> Stewart
> 
> 
> On 25/10/2016 13:37, Rolf Winter wrote:
> > Hi Stewart,
> >
> > I don't think the IESG has made a strict policy in this regard. Below is the
> blog post extract that talks about this. I read it as a recommendation to focus
> on protocol work and not let requirements work stall important protocol
> specifications and as a clarification that there is no actual need to go through
> a problem definition/use cases/requirements stage before protocol work can
> start. But, as the text states, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Not sure
> this is actually controversial and needs further discussion.
> >
> >
> > "We also discussed the role of requirement, use case, and problem
> definition documents in IETF work. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to
> different working groups. But the IESG wanted to be clear that the essence of
> IETF work and the energy often comes from working on protocol solutions.
> We were concerned about cases where it takes a long time to get to that
> work. Working groups should NOT feel they need to sequence their work in
> waterfall style. In fact, working in parallel with solutions and other supporting
> documents (and code!) is often the best approach. And some of the
> supporting documents need not necessarily always be RFCs; wikis, for
> instance, are a fine approach as well."
> >
> > From: https://www.ietf.org/blog/2016/05/
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rolf
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mpls [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> > Sent: Dienstag, 25. Oktober 2016 09:36
> > To: [e-mail]; <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] COnsensus call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-mfp-use-case-and-
> requirements - Working Group Last Call closed
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls