[v6ops] Re: Fwd: The V6OPS WG has placed draft-cc-v6ops-wlcg-flow-label-marking in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"

["Dale W. Carder" <[e-mail]>]

Thus spake Mark Smith ([e-mail]) on Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 08:05:02AM +1000:
> 
> Firstly, and the main reason, v6ops working group adoption means the
> document becomes a product of the WG, rather than just the authors.
> 
> As this ID is documenting violations of IETF Standard Track RFC 6437,
> it becoming a v6ops WG document means that the v6ops WG is tacitly
> endorsing RFC 6437 violation, even if published as Informational.
> 
> It becoming a WG document also suggests there is further work to be
> done on it by the WG, not just the authors. What further work on this
> ID is there the v6ops WG to do?
> 
> If the IETF is the best place to publish it, why can't it be published
> as an Independent Submission, avoiding v6ops tacit endorsement and any
> WG publication overheads.

As an author, I was admittedly on the fence for v6ops vs independent
submission.  However in our working so far with the WG, we've had 
some great feedback from the mailing list, some thoughtful unicast 
replies, and a favorable response particularly during q&a in person at 
IETF 117.  This definitely has resulted in a better document (and 
vastly improved my knowledge as well).  I am quite grateful for the 
input from the working group.
 
> Why can't it be published as an academic paper outside of the IETF,
> further avoiding the IETF RFC publication costs?

We are somewhat going down both paths and putting things where
IMHO they fit best.  We have details on the wire format, protocol
interactions, real deployment experience and so on in IETF. 

On the other hand we have some software stacks involved, analysis,
and other issues in the International Conference on Computing in High 
Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP).  

Dale