> On May 9, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <[email protected]> wrote: > > The i2nsf charter says > > "A single document covering use cases, problem statement, and gap analysis > document. This document will initially be produced for reference as a living > list to track and record discussions: the working group may decide to not > publish this document as an RFC." > > It's okay for me that the wg decided that they want to publish this document > (for whatever reason). I've read it and did not find it very useful for > people outside the wg. However, that's why I abstain and not blocking it.
+1 Alissa > > Mirja > > > > On 09.05.2017 17:09, Benoit Claise wrote: >> On 5/9/2017 4:56 PM, Warren Kumari wrote: >>> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for >>> draft-ietf-i2nsf-problem-and-use-cases-15: No Objection >>> >>> 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/ >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> COMMENT: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> I found the document to provide a useful overview and introduction - I >>> think that documents which provide an introduction to a technology are >>> useful, as they set the stage for users and implementers to understand >>> how everything ties together. >>> >>> I thank the authors for writing it. >>> >>> I also note that this is part of the I2NSF charter, and was written to >>> satisfy this. >> Indeed. >> We clarified the situation of "support documents" with this IESG statement: >> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/support-documents-in-ietf-wgs.html, dated >> Nov 2016. >> The statement contains this key sentence IMO: >> >> As regards to timing, it would be worthwhile to discuss the need to >> publish support documents early during the charter development process in >> order to set the right expectations and minimize surprises at a late >> stage. >> >> The authors produced the charter deliverables. Thanks for that. >> Once a deliverable is in an existing charter, I don't really understand the >> meaning of abstaining. >> The IESG statement should take effect for future charter discussions, not >> past charters. >> >> Regards, Benoit >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I2nsf mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf >>> . >>> >> > _______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
