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

["George, Wes" <[e-mail]>]

> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Alexey Melnikov
> >
> >> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Byron Ellacott <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >>> Hi Chris,
> >>>
> >>> When did the WG reach consensus on adopting this draft?
> >> when it spent ~50 mesasages discussing it?
> >> it seems that, even if we abandon it in the end, discussing this over
> >> a draft is a good thing to do.
[WEG] Chris, I realize that every WG and WG Chair has a different interpretation of the discuss/adoption/refinement/WGLC lifecycle, but IMO, discussion != "should adopt". There are plenty of drafts that get lots of discussion because lots of people say "stop, no, this is a bad idea" or there is controversy over a specific part of the draft along with some back-and-forth with the authors as they defend or refine their idea. In some WGs (which shall remain nameless to protect the clueless), 50 messages can show up in *one day* on a draft that is never going to be adopted.

> Byron and others,
> I think WG chairs (collectively) dropped the ball here: 3 of us have
> discussed the acceptance call a couple of times. We would like to
> apologize for sending inconsistent messages.
>
> After talking to various people this week, it looks like the best way
> forward is for the chairs to redo the acceptance call and ask very
> specific questions to keep everybody unconfused and hopefully happy.
>

I see two questions the WG needs to answer:
1) Is the problem described/solved by this draft actually a problem that we need to address?
2) Does this need to be in a standalone draft, or can it be incorporated into another existing draft

If #1 is yes, even if people don't agree with the solution proposed, that's a decent starting point for refinement.

As to the need to have refinement discussions over a document: I posed question #2 during the adoption call, and the reasoning for having it as a separate draft was never really discussed, so I think that's still outstanding. Personally I think the answer to #1 is probably yes, so I'm not opposed to the *content* and think it's worthwhile to refine it, but I'm not convinced it needs to be separate.

With apologies to Wheeler/Henney - all problems can be solved with another IETF draft, except the problem of too many IETF drafts.

Wes George

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.