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]>]

And, following up during the actual telechat ...

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
>

Both documents were approved on the telechat today, pending comment
resolution of comments received during IESG Evaluation.

So, my request to the working group to consider whether the suggestion to
combine these documents makes life easier for the readers you expect will
need to read one, the other, or both documents REALLY IS an honest
question, and not the IESG requiring fabulously late major editorial
changes without an active Discuss, because That Would Be Wrong.

Either answer works. We'll Do The Right Thing.

"Thanks in advance for your thoughts" :-)

Spencer, as responsible AD, who the IESG said they trusted to "Do The Right
Thing"