[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ngtrans -> v6ops



--On fredag, februar 21, 2003 10:46:04 +0900 Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

harald, i am proposing to step on your toes.  but it seems the best
way forward.  advice solicited
two points:

- in this space, I like Experimental a good deal more than I like Informational. Because it is a sign of admitting that it will need to change or be dropped, which I think is criticial.

- the pushback needs to be SEEB to be by the *working group*. If the AD does it, we go into the "bad IESG" mode again. If the WG chairs do it without consultation, they risk being tarred as "stooges of the IESG control freaks"; if they're afraid of that, they may not have the spine to do it.

I like experimentals. And pushing for them is consistent with what I said.

(when the next chair of the IETF comes in, I want to give him a pair of iron-tipped shoes as a welcome present.... they are needed for multiple purposes :-)

Harald

randy

---

From: Randy Bush <randy@iij.com>
To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@windriver.com>
Cc: Bob Fink <bob@thefinks.com>,
    Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <itojun@iijlab.net>,
    Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: draft-tsuchiya-mtp-00.txt
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:41:43 +0900


What is the usual policy/procedure for individual submissions
to be published as experimental?  Are they normally reviewed
by the IESG and/or checked with WGs for possible conflict?

yup


Fred Templin's request specifically asked for standards track
publication, but the request from Kazuaki Tsuchiya does not
request any particular status...

yup, noticed that.  he probably wants ps, but would settle if
we moved it ahead


In v6ops we are trying to do something that I think is very
important -- requiring that "coexistence mechanisms" are
justified by a real-world need before they are published,
and that the are published with appropriate applicability
information based on analysis of their potential uses.

this behavior is bound to get you punished.  too rational.


And, I don't see how we can do that effectively if it is
possible (and perhaps easier) for people to get their
mechanisms published on the individual track.

well, i think harald was too appeasing.  and i do not mind
forcing things back.  but i want to know i am doing the
right thing, that we agree, and that we do have a path that
is clear to the players that will allow their stuff to move
forward in an appropriate fashion.

i.e. i don't mind saying "stuff it" if i can tell them where
to stuff it and when and how we will be dealing with the
stuffin's


However, there is also a strong (and compelling) argument
that we should allow many of these mechanisms to be
published as experimental RFCs, and only move the ones
to the standards track that we believe have real-world
applicability.

this seems a reasonable compromise.


If we're going to do it that way, though, I'd rather
publish them as experimental through v6ops, so that we can
get them reviewed by the WG and can exert some control
over the quality/quantity/etc. of mechanisms.

fine.


Whichever one we pick, though, we need to know that the
IESG as a whole will back us up.

i will take care of that part

randy