RE: discussion about document publishing

["Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>]

Wijnen, Bert wrote:
> ...
> > The mechanisms that solve the identified scenarios all need
> > to be on the standards track.
> > There is no need for delay and long evaluation.
> >
> We do need standards track solutions indeed. BUT, to come to consensus
> on which one (or maybe few) solutions should be on the standards track
> will probably take a somewhat long(er) time. If you prefer that, then
> that may be an alternative.

There will not be a one-size-fits-all transition mechanism. As Jordi
described at the mic on Monday, a single laptop (like mine) might need all
of them over the period of a single multi-city trip. 

I have no problem dropping mechanisms that do not fit in our scenarios. My
issue is the apparent attempt to thwart the working group from progressing
as standards the mechanisms that their customers are in fact using. This
'publish them as Experimental' approach is not about getting them
progressing along the standards track. The only reason to keep them off the
standards track is to only allow a working group doc out when it is ready
for DS. That is not how we develop standards track documents. 

Tony