Re: [sidr] WGLC for draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-05

[Brian Dickson <[e-mail]>]

IMHO, attempting to generate discussion on a document by doing WGLC, is
completely bass-ackwards.

I don't believe it is at all appropriate to WGLC a document prior to
substantive review and maturity.

I.e. the chairs should ask FIRST, informally, if folks think we're ready to
WGLC, and wait a bit for answers.
The bar for saying "no" should be fairly low, and only in the absence of
lots of positive "hum" should WGLC proceed.

I would suggest the chairs review the processes adopted in other (more
mature) WGs, such as dnsext, for better processes and procedures.
E.g. commitment of >=5 reviewers to review, prior to WGLC. This excludes
authors, of course, from the review process.
It has worked very well there, IMHO.

Given that, as Danny notes, the entire content of -protocol depends on
-requirements, which itself depends on -threats, I have to concur with him
- "NO" to proceeding at this time.

So, to be clear:
- I don't think that, even if it were otherwise ready, that it wold be
appropriate to WGLC the -protocol doc
- I do not believe the -protocol doc is ready to go (independent of the
gating issue)

There are several areas that are not adequately settled, especially in the
pcount=0 and transition areas.

Consider this a formal request to bounce this document out of WGLC.

It would be fine to discuss on the interim meeting, and there does not need
to be a WGLC just to get discussion.

Brian

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]
> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Danny McPherson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I do not intend to review this document in it's current state and am
> confused how we can WG LC it while the threat and [presumably subsequent]
> requirements documents are still being developed by the WG.
> >
> > I would like an explanation from the chairs regarding what the intention
> is here.
>
> I believe the hope was to stir up some discussion, interest and
> readers prior to the interim meeting next saturday. As with all WGLC's
> perhaps this document needs to wait on something else, or isn't ready
> yet, or has other considerations to deal with... or is ready to fly
> like a baby birdie. we won't know without some discussion, and I
> believe there will be a bunch more of that in 8 days time.
>
> -chris
>
> > On Sep 20, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Danny McPherson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sandy,
> >> I don't understand how we can WG LC this document when the requirements
> document isn't complete, and the requirements document isn't complete
> because we're still working out the threats document.
> >>
> >> Can you explain the logic here?
> >>
> >> -danny
> >>
> >> On Sep 15, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
> >>
> >>> This starts a working group last call for
> draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-05.  The draft is available at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-05 and
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol/
> >>>
> >>> Please review this draft to see if you think it is ready for
> publication.  Send end comments to the list.
> >>>
> >>> The WGLC will end on 29 September 2012.
> >>>
> >>> --Sandy, speaking as wg co-chair
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> sidr mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> sidr mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sidr mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
> _______________________________________________
> sidr mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
>