Hi Jeff and Alvaro, Inline for my comments.
> On Sep 29, 2015, at 8:43 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jh...@pfrc.org> wrote: > > 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. I’d like to see that clarified across IETF, at the lease RTG area which I am focussed on. Secondly, would like to see what the definition of short lived documents are. Why are problem statement, requirements etc, which are short lived and more or less like use case document as well, made as RFC’s? As long as there is consistency and definition, IETF as a community shouldn’t have a problem. That way folks have choice on where to invest time. -sam > > > -- Jeff
