Re: [Taps] One RFC, or two, for draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage and draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Just to make a long-delayed decision ...

Based on responses to my question to TAPS about whether
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp should be folded into
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage, I am seeing no support in the working
group for that, and reasons why the draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp
draft is useful without reference to the draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage.

For these reasons, I ask that the authors submit an updated
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage draft, taking into account the ballot
comments from Eric, Mirja, Ben, and Benoit.

I see that the draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-udp draft has already been
updated to reflect comments received during balloting. I'll send the
Approved e-mails for both drafts as a set.

Thanks to everyone who provided input.

Spencer, as AD

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear TAPS working group,
>
> Multiple ADs have asked why these two drafts aren't a single draft, in
> their ballots. Those are non-blocking comments, but I'd like to explore
> that, before making a decision about what should happen, and when.
>
> It occurs to me that these ADs are reading both drafts pretty much
> back-to-back in preparation for balloting during IESG Evaluation.
>
> If people reading the two drafts back-to-back find the split to be a
> distraction, I'd like to understand the views of the working group as to
> how often you expect people to read both drafts, in order to do TAPS.
>
> I could imagine that people working on complete TAPS APIs might need to
> read both drafts.
>
> What about other folks you expect to read these documents? Do you expect
> that some communities only need to read one of them?
>
> Thanks in advance for any thoughts you can share.
>
> Spencer, as responsible AD for TAPS
>