Sam (and to a bigger extent, Alvaro), On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 11:48:19AM -0700, aldrin ietf wrote: > > Coming back to this specific document.. I’m asking the WG to consider not > > publishing, not telling it what to do. In fact, if you look at the WG > > charter, even though there is a specific Milestone, the WG is chartered to > > “define a mechanism..” (not to produce use cases). Nonetheless, because > > the work has already been done, the WG can make the decision whether it > > still wants to publish or not. > > If that is the case, it shouldn’t even be a WG document right? > Also, the deliverable was tracked as part of milestone isn’t it? > Does that mean, milestones truly doesn’t reflect the deliverable but only > Charter does? > > Do not know all the semantics of the IETF WG processes. Clarification helps.
Adopting the document within the WG basically means the working group "owns" the document and that we're motivated to get work on it done. This includes things like tracking it via a milestone. Not all WG documents will be published as RFCs. The bigger question to argue IETF-wide is when we have these short-lived documents, should we just start in something like a wiki especially if the information is to be maintained long-term? Possibly. But as other people have noted in different forums, the "IETF workflow" moves around the publication life-cycle of Internet-Drafts. I'm not completely sold on the maintenance of the use cases long-term in the wiki. In my opinion, the primary purpose of use case documents is to help clarify and move forward protocol work. Ideally a portion of the use cases are clear in the actual protocol documentation, just not their individual breakdowns. -- Jeff
