Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting

["Murphy, Sandra" <[e-mail]>]

>Thank you for clarifying this. For confirmation, in the future any draft
>put forward to SIDR that generates "interest" but not necessarily rough
>consensus will be admitted as a working group document. Is that correct?

The point of a call for adoption is to see if the working group is interested in working on a topic, not to achieve consensus on content.  Calls for adoption are not (supposed) to discuss content.  

Are you sure you are not thinking of wglc, where consensus on the content is needed?

And I said it generated "a first storm of discussion", not "interest".

--Sandy
________________________________________
From: Andy Newton [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 9:38 AM
To: Murphy, Sandra; Christopher Morrow
Cc: Alexey Melnikov; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [sidr] WG acceptance call for draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting

On 11/8/12 8:21 AM, "Murphy, Sandra" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>the author of the document did not engage in the
>>discussion
>
>As Yakov was fond of saying, "send text".  Authors of wg drafts are
>supposed to represent consensus.

If this is true, then the current document should be blank since it does
not represent consensus.

Also are you now saying that the author does not need to participate in
the discussion since he can now only represent consensus decisions? If so,
that would mean the author of this draft has been able to completely avoid
addressing any of the issues raised. That strikes me as not being the IETF
way.

>
>A topic that generates a fire storm of discussion has a good chance.
>Nothing like actively working on a topic to demonstrate interest in
>working on the topic.

Thank you for clarifying this. For confirmation, in the future any draft
put forward to SIDR that generates "interest" but not necessarily rough
consensus will be admitted as a working group document. Is that correct?

-andy