On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
... and I thought we should adopt this, have a very short discussion on the results, and then quickly move to WGLC and publish it. Having survey results (which show a number of issues, some obvious and some surprising) as an OpsAWG document makes it clear that this is something that we (the IETF and OpsAWG in particular) are actually paying attention to, and are going to try and address. The survey results look kinda like a problem statement, and having it published by OpsAWG gives it a good home, and helps make it clear where discussions on the "solutions" are welcome. Concerns about the lack of operator input are not new - there have been rumblings about it for a long, long time; making it clear that we are actually taking this seriously, and are trying to address the issue is important. IMO, Independent Submissions does not give that impression - for various reasons people have the idea that IS is a stream for non-IETF documents, or things that someone somewhere thought were vaguely interesting, and the IETF didn't care enough about to squash or champion. Much of this is not a technical argument, but rather a touchy feely, marketing argument... W > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
