Re: ASON reqts

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Steve,

On Wed, 14 May 2003, Stephen Trowbridge wrote:

> I have a growing sense of unease that we could be headed
> for trouble here because, among those who seem to support that
> this becomes a WG document, there seem to be (among those who
> indicate a reason) a wide variety of different motivations about
> WHY this should be a WG document and what the posters expect
> will happen as a result.

As I just said in a private email exchange, I've given up trying to
infer motivations, intentions and purposes -- I don't have a degree
in political science or in psychology (and I'm beginning to wish I
had one in psychiatry).  Fortunately, that's not my job as a chair;
my job as a chair is to progress technically accurate, relevant
documents that fall within the CCAMP charter.

> Perhaps more helpful than just a Yes/No preference, it would
> be more helpful to characterize the reasons so that, if this
> becomes a WG document, we know we have a consensus on why we
> are doing this and what we are trying to accomplish.

Well, thanks, Steve for telling me how to do my job.  The IETF
progresses (or not) documents based on rough consensus -- raising
hands, hums, and their electronic equivalents.  Any discussion that
accompanies the call for consensus is very useful, but its purpose
is (or should be) to persuade others to your point of view.

> I think I have detected the following motivations from different
> posts in the thread:

You may have captured the motivations.  It makes interesting reading,
in any case.  You may then persuade people to decide which of positions
A-Z they subscribe to -- but ultimately, whether on the basis of
motivations or technical content or political leaning, each one needs
to state their preference on progressing, holding back or dumping the
requirements document.

As a WG chair, I sincerely hope that the basis will be technical
merit and relevance.  That makes the chairs' job easier.

Perhaps it would be useful to emphasize the following:
 o This is not a call to make the doc an RFC, it's to make the doc a
   CCAMP WG document.  The document doesn't have to be perfect, it
   doesn't have to satisfy rfc2223bis, references are minor details.
 o Making a doc a WG doc does not automatically mean it gets published.
   It is a statement that the WG thinks that this work is useful, and
   should be pursued.  It does give the document a certain legitimacy
   both within the IETF and with other SDOs, which means that the
   decision to make a doc a WG doc is not to be taken lightly; on the
   other hand, there are cases where a WG doc has either been altered
   drastically, or abandoned as a result of WG deliberations.
 o Making any one document a WG doc has no direct effect on another doc.
   So, for those who think that making the reqts doc a WG doc means that
   a solutions doc (such as draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason) also
   becomes a WG doc are mistaken.

Finally, the above is not to be taken as a deterrent to discussion.
I encourage discussion, whether it be on technical content, motivations,
or future activity.  All I ask is that the discussion be conducted
professionally, and the material be relevant to the CCAMP list.  I
thank you all that this discussion has so far been all of the above.

Kireeti.