Let's remind ourselves what the ABSTAIN is for.
From https://www.ietf.org/iesg/voting-procedures.html :
* *"Abstain"* means "I cannot support sending this document forward."
There are two obvious reasons an AD might post this ballot position:
o I am so strongly opposed to the document that I am unwilling to
"discuss". (Note that this should be very unusual.)
o I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am
not going to stand in the way of the others.
It is normal good practice for an AD to enter a Comment that
explains the reason for their Abstain position.
"Not very useful" might fit in the HBU category (*), but that's a
different situation IMO.
(*) HBU: "Harmless But Useless". Ron Bonica's copyright.
Regards, Benoit
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
