IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop WGLC

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Mon, 19 August 2013 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86CE21F89A6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:51:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.224
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dnMYqdyMb3YF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4B521F9EA9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [128.9.176.27] (c1-vpn1.isi.edu [128.9.176.27]) (authenticated bits=0) by boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7JKoVqS023192 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:50:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52128518.3050307@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:50:32 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <201308181800.r7II06mv003294@irp-view13.cisco.com> <521263D3.6070704@isi.edu> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B9A92CB@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <521281D0.9050808@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <521281D0.9050808@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: "<v6ops@ietf.org>" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:51:43 -0000

On 8/19/2013 1:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 20/08/2013 07:13, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 2013, at 11:28 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
>>   wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, all,
>>>
>>> I don't quite understand a WGLC on an individual submission. IMO, if it's a WG doc it needs to be opened up for substantial revision.
>>>
>>> As an individual submission, I think it strays too far into the purview of this WG to be permitted.
>>
>> I can see this both ways. v6ops has in the past sent individual documents this way when it agreed to them. My perspective is that the draft is largely agreed to and is close to being ready to move on. If we need to rework it in some way, we can have the reworked draft as a working group document. If we agree to it as it stands, I'm not sure I see the mechanical point.
>
> The fact that the draft doesn't happen to match the draft-ietf-v6ops naming
> convention is beside the point, and there is no formal stage called "WG
> adoption" in the IETF standards process. It's perfectly "legal" to bypass
> these two conventional steps.

Like some of the content of the doc, IMO that is misleading at best. 
There is a well-understood convention for WG docs:

http://www.ietf.org/id-info/guidelines.html#naming

I did assume that this isn't a WG doc because of its naming. IMO, a WG 
shouldn't endorse non-WG docs that are within its purview.

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email