The WG call for adoption for draft-opsawg-operators-ietf has finished. Not all that many people spoke up on the list and the opinion on adoption was split among the people who did speak up.
If any message emerged it was that WG adoption of the ID, as-is, would not add much to the value of the ID. David seemed to sum it up best: Hmm - I would support adoption if the WG chairs intend to make this draft actually look like a problem statement, not just kinda. This could be done, by planning to add a small amount of material summarizing the problem at the end of the draft ... where Section 5 is already effectively a placeholder awaiting addition of that sort of material. I have a hard time supporting draft adoption for the sole purpose of rubber-stamping the draft with the WG's imprimatur, with effectively no work on the draft occurring in the WG. It is the opinion of this chair (Warren having recused himself) that the ID author should see if he can do what David suggests (add material summarizing the problem at the end of the draft) and republish as a non-WG ID. The WG can revisit the question of adoption after that is done. My personal view is that this is useful information (though more details of the actual research would be helpful (as Juergen commented) and the IETF would benefit from the information being published as an RFC but it would mostly help if the IETF actually made use of the information in some way to broaden operator participation - I am not sure how to get there from here (or from the ID). Scott _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
