Re: [v6ops] Call For Adoption: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment

While neither you nor I speak for the WG chairs, my understanding of the 
expectation for adoption has an important additional aspect you do not 
mention below.

That is that in addition to being a topic that is within scope and 
something the WG desires to work on, the given document is seen by the 
WG participants as a good starting points for the work.

Nick's comments seem to my reading to saay that he does not see the 
document, in it's current form, as a good starting point for the working 
group effort.  That seems to me to be a legitimate concern to raise 
during an adoption call.

Yours,
Joel

On 6/8/2021 1:23 PM, Giuseppe Fioccola wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> The goal of the adoption is also to understand if the WG considers this work useful and in scope. In this way the WG can start to spend more effort and resources on it. As a matter of fact, the WG adoption does not necessarily mean that the document will be published as RFC as it is now. It can be changed in the future. Also, there are several examples of adopted drafts that did not become RFCs.
> 
> Having said that, we can surely restructure the draft and improve its readability after the possible adoption. Note that in the last version we made a lot of changes to address the high number of inputs and, this may also have affected the fluency of the text. We are open to collaborate and it would be great if you have specific suggestions on a possible new document structure.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Giuseppe
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 6:30 PM
> To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@huawei.com>
> Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>; v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Call For Adoption: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment
> 
> Giuseppe Fioccola wrote on 08/06/2021 16:41:
>> [GF]: I agree that the document needs to be improved but I disagree
>> that this is not in scope of V6OPS WG.
> 
> The issue is not whether the content area is in scope for v6ops (clearly it is), just that there were enough fundamental problems with the structure and content of the document such that it isn't appropriate for adoption at the moment.  Specifically, 1. there seem to be three main strands in the document which don't fit together well, and 2. there's no beginning, middle and end to the document - after reading the document, I didn't have a clear picture of what it was trying to say.
> 
> I can't see a way of fixing this without complete restructuring from the beginning.  Maybe the individual strands could be made to work as standalone documents?  Possibly if the document started out with a formal design and was rewritten from scratch to fit inside this design, it would become more cohesive?  Either way, these are issues that need to be sorted before the document is adopted rather than after.
> 
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 