Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[Ping Pan <pingpan@juniper.net>]

Kireeti,


The requirement from Ron address the problem that we have been seen in 
the network today. This is an issue that we have to deal with it NOW. I 
vote (a).

- Ping


>>-----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.
>>
>>
>>
>