On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:13:10PM +0000, Chris Grundemann wrote: > 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. >
The survey report is one thing, possible actions to change the situation are another thing. I prefer to not mix those two together. For example, how do we determine that "making it easier and more likely for implementors (read: operators) to participate" has been achieved? I am not saying this discussion is not worthwhile, do not get me wrong on that. But I do not think that making this document a WG document is useful. My preference still is to publish the survey via the individual stream and discuss any possible actions to change the situation separately. OPSAWG should allocate time for this discussion, I do not think the survery report has to become an OPSAWG working group item for having this discussion. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
