Hi Carlos, I do owe a new version with comments addressed, irrespective of whether it becomes RFC or not. Few top level points though. 1. If you are making decisions based on how many are interested, BFD WG will disappoint you, pretty much every draft. Mailing list is the reflection of it. 2. Till there is a parking place for documents like use cases, problem statements, Frameworks, it is moot point to say that, there is no use.
Fact of the matter, IETF takes too long that protocols becomes obsolete before they become RFC and no one know what those protocols are trying to solve (lack of use case?). :D Having said that, will try to get a version soon and let WG deal with it however it likes. Unfortunately IETF is not fulltime job and co-authors and contributors have gone incognito. On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) < [email protected]> 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. > %sam - If 'S' in S-BFD meant SDN, it would have been different story :D. IMO, if usecase or requirements do not have interest, why would protocols are important and have interest? Alternately, question to be asked is, why is WG not interested. Document or SBFD itself? > > 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? > %sam - I take the ownership for cause of this delay. Let me revert back with updated version. > > > 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? > %sam - Have you tried your hands at MIB documents? :D > > > 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 > > > >
