Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?

[Thomas Narten <[e-mail]>]

James Carlson <[e-mail]> writes:

> The document is clearly in scope of the working group, and I believe the
> only other question regarding adoption is whether the wg wants (and the
> authors want) to steer the document by the working group consensus
> process.

IMO, this document is a straightforward TRILL encapsulation over Foo
document. I would expect TRILL to produce a number of these, one per
link technology. 

As long as such documents are scoped as how to run TRILL over a
specific technology, IMO, such documents should be taken on by this
WG. If we don't do it, who will? And we certainly want exactly one
document per foo technology...

> Determining whether it's needed or the right technical solution is
> further down the road.  If the wg determines that it's not right and
> can't fix it, then it can terminate the work that it steers.  Adoption
> doesn't mean "we're committed to publishing this."

That is the theory. Sadly, in practice, taking on a document as a WG
item often does imply a committment to publish. I've seen plenty of
WGs make the argument that taking a document on is not a committment
to publish, and then later see a real reluctance to abandon a document
that has limited if any real support.

To be clear, I support taking on this particular document because I
believe this is a good example of the kind of document that should be
squarely within scope. However, I also agree with Tissa's general
concern:

"Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <[e-mail]> writes:

> My main objection of making individual submissions WG docs without well
> thought through strategy is it takes away the focus and confuse WG,
> customers and burden vendors. Additionally, TRILL WG should focus on the
> priority items that was agreed in Taipei. Adding additional WG docs is
> not helping anyways. I am in the opinion that WG should identify
> priority Work areas, then form strategy around it, bring together
> different ideas to form well thought through solutions.

This WG has too many documents to deal with and we are to some extent
thrashing. Any WG has a finite amount of WG cycles. I continue to
worry generally that our cycles are spread too thinly across too many
documents. While I support taking on draft-mrw-trill-over-ip, it is
far from clear to me that it needs to be a priority item for the WG.

Thomas