RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Kireeti,

I vote for (b).

-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:47 PM
> To: David Allan
> Cc: neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com; 
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>