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

Joe Touch <> Mon, 14 May 2012 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BAD21F88D4 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 10:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.398
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.799, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zPGW95STLGd0 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 10:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD6A21F88D0 for <>; Mon, 14 May 2012 10:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4EHBO0c008697 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 May 2012 10:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 10:11:25 -0700
From: Joe Touch <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: James Carlson <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Cc: "Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir)" <>, Erik Nordmark <>,
Subject: Re: [trill] Should we make draft-mrw-trill-over-ip-01 a WG document?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 17:12:09 -0000

On 5/14/2012 10:03 AM, James Carlson wrote:
> Tissa Senevirathne (tsenevir) wrote:
>> [Answer] Each WG status document is intended to be considered to be a
>> future RFC. They are not mere numbers or academic papers.
> We clearly disagree in fundamental ways on how the process works.  I had
> thought that BCP 25 made it clear that I-Ds have no standards status
> whatsoever, and that advancement of wg documents (if it happens, not
> when) requires both group consensus and IESG review.  WG adoption does
> not in any way confer RFC status upon a draft.

This is discussed in Sec 5.3 of the Tao of the IETF.

> And, yes, I do think the bar for entry into discussion should be quite
> low.  A draft discussing a new HTML status code probably doesn't belong
> here.  But something discussing TRILL extensions clearly does, even if
> it's something that the group hadn't collectively "planned" on discussing.

WG status does not have any impact on whether the draft is discussed.

I agree with Tissa - IMO, the WG should adopt drafts it reasonably 
agrees it wants to issue as WG RFCs. WG adoption doesn't confer 
particular status, but it is a suggestion to the WG as to where critical 
resources should be spent (e.g., resolving WG docs before considering 
independent ones, when resources are critical).