Hi Adrian, > On Apr 11, 2017, at 2:34 PM, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Mirja, > I think it is best that you discuss this topic with the rest of the IESG and > then we can be told what to do. > > (FWIW, I heard this conversation about 6 times in the 6 years I was on the > IESG and the opinion swung back and forth. The IESG I was on never managed to > get a clear position set down to guide the authors of future documents. > Perhaps you could write one?)
We did, last year: https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/support-documents-in-ietf-wgs.html <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/support-documents-in-ietf-wgs.html> Alissa > > Cheers, > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 11 April 2017 19:26 >> To: The IESG >> Cc: [email protected]; Adrian Farrel; i2nsf- >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: >> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >> >> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-12: Discuss >> >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all >> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this >> introductory paragraph, however.) >> >> >> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html >> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> DISCUSS: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> This document should be informational. I don't see any reason that this >> document must be cited normatively by all following document of this wg >> (as indicated in the shepherd write-up) and even if so that does not >> justify publication as Standards track if the information in the document >> is only informational. >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> As soon as my discuss is resolved I will change to 'Abstain' as I don't >> see value in the publication of this document. I can see that this >> document was useful for discussion in the working group but I don't know >> why it needs to be published as RFC. Also there is quite some redundancy >> everywhere in the document aa well as between the problem statement and >> use case part. Spelling out requirements for the protocol design based on >> the analysis of these problems and use cases (which was already a bit >> attempted from time to time in the doc) would have been more useful but >> does still not have an archivable value that justifies publication as RFC >> in the IETF stream (indicating IETF consensus). > >
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
