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

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

Please comments in-line

-----Original Message-----
From: James Carlson [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 9:18 AM
To: Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)
Cc: Erik Nordmark; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG
document?

Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) wrote:
> I think we are agreeing on lots points except one important point i.e.
> SHOULD or SHOULD NOT make individual submissions WG docs without a 
> strategy.

I understand what you're saying, but I think that steering work that's
directly related to the WG's future success sounds to me like part of a
good strategy.

> 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.

I don't quite follow.  Publishing an RFC as an independent submission to
the IESG has exactly those effects.  That's the bad outcome that occurs
when a WG doesn't steer work that's intimately related to its charter.

I don't understand how a "burden" develops on vendors or customers as a
result of the discussion of ideas in the WG -- that's all that drafts
represent; ideas.  A burden certainly can develop as a result of
_decisions_ that are made by a WG, but mere discussion shouldn't have
that effect.  If it does, then those vendors and customers have just way
too much time on their collective hands, or perhaps they're confused
about the process.

[Answer] Each WG status document is intended to be considered to be a
future RFC. They are not mere numbers or academic papers. That is the
reason why WG, Vendors and customers read them. Yes having too many of
them and some with duplication or implementing part solution takes away
the time available in hand. Again, my point is we do not need to make a
document a WG status document for simple discussion purpose (which seems
the point you are arguing)

> Secondly, it seems you are in the opinion that to get WG input the 
> draft need to be WG document. I disagree with that. A draft does not 
> need to be in WG status to get WG feedback. Authors should solicit 
> feedback through the mailing list. Making a WG status is not going to 
> change that.

Oh, well.  I tried.

Much luck.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <[e-mail]>