RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Let me say a few words:

1) There was good support for this work (the requirements doc) to
   be a WG document at a previous IETF.  It is a good thing to
   follow up and check what the mailing list thinks, as not everyone
   attends IETFs.

2) It is interesting that no one brought up the issue of whether this
   work (tunnel tracing) is in the charter or not at the meeting.
   There are those who think the charter isn't explicit enough.  I'll
   talk to the ADs and see (a) if they think that this *is* in the
   charter; (b) if not, are they willing to take it to the IESG and
   add it to the charter.

   My input on this (as WG chair) is that CCAMP is all about tunnels,
   and a protocol to debug and test tunnels is well within scope, even
   if not called out explicitly.

   Note that the charter is *not* subject to WG consensus, nor even
   the WG chairs.  The IESG (and IAB?) are solely responsible,
   although the WG and chairs can suggest changes.

3) A document that is "in the right spirit" can become a WG document,
   even if there are disagreements about some details, and even
   "fundamental" questions.  Note that "fundamental" is often
   subjective.

I would like to have the mailing list equivalent of a 'show of hands'
regarding this draft.  Do you think:
(a) it should be a WG document?
(b) it's good stuff, but not ready?
(c) we need a new start?

Please send in your opinions with one of the above up top.  Any
detailed reasoning you have for your opinion may follow.

Thanks!
Kireeti.