> It seems this draft provides a template for analysis without any > conclusion. Or did I missed somthing important? > I would support if the draft could provide further insightful technology > viewpoint. Or is it intentional for the WG to adopt first, and then > generate the technology view?
The purpose of adopting a document as a WG document is to: 1) Show that WG intends to produce a specific document (and hopefully that there is an understanding of what the document is intended to do). 2) Make it clear that for a particular topic or charter deliverable, the WG has picked one document as a starting point to focus its efforts on, rather than encouraging competing drafts (which then would need to be merged or something). 3) Focus attention/WG effort on that one document, rather than encouraging (or facilitating) the spreading (and dilution) of activity across multiple (possibly overlapping) efforts intended to result in more or less the same thing (in the end), i.e., a WG document. Having everyone focus on one document is generally a quicker path towards getting a final document then encouraging lots of activity on different documents that then later have to somehow be merged. It is not the case that the contents of the document need to be fully baked prior to WG adoption. Once a WG document, a document will need additional work, and any content updates are firmly under the control of the WG. Thus, updating the content, adding things, removing things, etc. are all clearly expected to still happen once a document is adopted by the WG. Arguments that major changes won't/don't/can't happen once the WG adopts a document are just flat out bogus. In some sense, delaying adoption of a document until its contents have been updated is sending a signal of "lack of confidence" in the authors ability/willingness to do the WG's bidding. If that is the real issue with any document, having a frank coversation with the chairs would be in order. Given that the document at issue (gap analysis) was produced via a design team (put together by the chairs) and the lack of competing documents that anyone is arguing would be a better starting point for what is clearly a charter deliverable, I don't quite understand why there would be hesitation with WG adoption in this case. Thomas _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
