Hello Alvaro, Carlos and BFD work group,
I think "bfd-seamless-base" is ready to go - so we should move forward towards RFC. I do no see any value waiting. Waiting for what? >> the document in short order. As you mentioned above, there is little >> value in publishing the use cases *after* the solution. I disagree with this. Neither the base draft nor the implementations will change anymore, whether the use-case is published before, after or at all. > personally have no strong opinion about what to do with use-case; in fact, > I find it terribly disappointing and even demoralizing that folks invest > their volunteer time to get to Finish_Line_minus_5_minutes and be told ‘ > the race got cancelled’. I believe those decisions are taken early and agree. That's an IETF problem: you want a discussion about the use cases to clarify the problem, to clarify the direction to go. But once you had this discussion the focus should be on the main technical drafts. Use-cases are somewhat a disposable. We should honor the work but I don't think the usual mechanisms do fit. Maybe we should treat use-case documents on a fast track to informal RFC? And work groups should have a focus on terminating the use-case discussions early? Accept these documents will have a "raw" appeal because that's what they are? Anyway, I would propose to move on with the drafts that define the technical standards. For the use-case document, Carlos wrote ... "[...] there is a value in that those use-cases can guide extensions to the protocol." ... and we actually may have a good discussion in the work group about the future of S-BFD and use the use-case document to keep these avenues open. Again, I don't see there is any interlock which documents are first. Regards, Marc On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 23:25:34 +0000, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote: > Álvaro, > > Thanks for the response! — please see inline. > >> On Mar 18, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Alvaro Retana (aretana) <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> On 3/18/16, 9:25 AM, "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Carlos: >> >> Hi! >> >>> BFD Group, chairs, Álvaro, >> >> I'm replying because the WG already asked for publication of the base >> S-BFD documents (including the use-cases). >> >> ... >>> The bfd-seamless-use-case document was last submitted in July 2015. I can >>> appreciate the fact that publishing use-cases after the protocol is >>> potentially of little value ‹ there is a value in that those use-cases >>> can guide extensions to the protocol. But it also concerns me that there >>> seems to be very little value for the base document to wait on publishing >>> the use-cases first, since the -base protocol is done and the base >>> document was updated to be independent from use cases. The use case >>> document is only referenced by the -base document, and that pointer is >>> Informative [3]. >>> >>> What¹s the plan on pushing forward bfd-seamless-base (and untangling the >>> other 5)? Is there something for the WG or editors to do (I assume not >>> since -base has no dependencies and all AD Evaluation comments have been >>> addressed)? >> >> I had asked the WG to consider not publishing >> draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case [A], but after a lengthy exchange with >> the authors and a discussion at IETF 94, the WG decided to "give another >> chance to the authors" [B]. >> > > A video [Ψ] is worth a lot more than a thousand meeting minutes [B]. I > must say that [Ψ] conveys the sentiment with much more richness! > > [B] that you cite says: > > "[Jeff] > S-BFD use case document publication status - what is the feeling of WG? > Taking > sense of the room. Do you think we should publish this? Not to publish this? > Two people have opinion on this, one way or the other. Sense of WG is that > this > is not critical work, will give another chance to the authors.” > > Basically: > • “Two people have opinion on this” > • “this is not critical work” > • "will give another chance to the authors” > That does not sounds terribly convincing. Don’t get me wrong — I > personally have no strong opinion about what to do with use-case; in fact, > I find it terribly disappointing and even demoralizing that folks invest > their volunteer time to get to Finish_Line_minus_5_minutes and be told ‘ > the race got cancelled’. I believe those decisions are taken early and > then we stick with the decision, and IETF WGs and chairs will be much > better served with an actual IESG statement about this. However, I do have > an opinion about not artificially slowing down protocol work, and I believe > that protocol (i.e., the 5 S-BFD documents on base, ip, ospf, isis, > l2tpext, and pals) work is the high-order bit in this set. > > In any case, I have one quick question: WG, Jeff, Reshad, Alvaro, when does > this 'another chance' expire? By Buenos Aires? > > >> Last week I met with one of the authors of >> draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case; he assured me that he will be working on >> the document in short order. As you mentioned above, there is little >> value in publishing the use cases *after* the solution. > > What’ the value for bfd-seamless-base for waiting? Does it get better with > age? > >> >> The way forward is simple: I'll wait for draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case >> before progressing all 3 base documents together. If the WG changes its >> mind (about publishing draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case) then we will have >> other options. > > See above — wait indefinitely? > >> >>> Net-net: I¹d recommend moving -base (and dependents) forward. >> >> I want to point out that there are 5 authors *and* 5 contributors listed >> in draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-use-case (including 4 of the 5 authors of >> draft-ietf-bfd-seamless-base). I would hope that we could find more than >> one person willing and able to complete the work -- and not depend on just >> one. >> >> Thanks! > > Thank you! > >> >> Alvaro. > > — Carlos. > > [Ψ] https://youtu.be/ZCQ08Q-Nnn4?t=390 > > >> >> >> [A] >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-bfd/kin3Me4WrKbe9WljhkSfkKvsefA >> [B] https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/minutes/minutes-94-bfd >> > > >
