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

[James Carlson <[e-mail]>]

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. 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)

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.

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.

Given the nature of the disagreement, and the fact that I'm repeating
myself, I don't think extended discussion will be fruitful.  Perhaps
it'd be good to hear other viewpoints.

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