RE: discussion about document publishing

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

The consensus call was somewhat bogus. The lead in discussion from the chair
said we either publish as experimental or publish nothing. Clearly people
will pick any opportunity to publish something, because they are frustrated
with lack of progress.

Tony


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Tony Hain
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 11:34 PM
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: discussion about document publishing
> 
> 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