On 1/7/15, 3:52 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 05:18:12PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote: >> Dear OpsAWG, >> >> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-opsawg-operators-ietf. >> >> The draft is available here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsawg-operators-ietf/ >> > >The I-D reports results from a survey. It is not a technical >specification that a working group can work on. The work intended is to further analyze the results and the situation they describe to identify additional solutions that may be actionable. These potential actions may come from the IETF, the Operator communities around the world, or possibly the ISOC. Simply reporting that we have found a set of problems is only part of the goal for this document. From the abstract: "The primary purpose of doing this is to start a conversation which we hope will lead to increases in the level of operational input and feedback to the IETF standards making process." >My recommendation would be to change the title to be more specific >that this document is a survey report and then to submit this document >as an individual submission to the RFC editor for publication. I do >not see that a WG process can add value to the survey report. We, the authors, considered that path (and had several ADs offer to sponsor the I-D as well). We believe however that this is absolutly one type of work the OpsAWG should take on: Building the intellectual capital of the IETF by making it easier and more likely for implementors (read: operators) to participate. Cheers, ~Chris _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
