On 9/23/14 6:04 AM, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 23/09/2014 09:27, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: Hi, Please find below 2 feedbacks: 1) Small topics “and may work on specific small topics that do not fit with an existing working group.” “RTGWG may also work on specific small topics that do not fit with an existing working group.” What about work which is general to Link State Protocols i.e. not specific to IS-IS and OSPF protocols. Should it be done once in RTGWG or twice in both IS-IS & OSPF WGs? e.g. draft-litkowski-rtgwg-spf-uloop-pb-statement<http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-rtgwg-1.pdf>, draft-decraene-rtgwg-backoff-algo<http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/90/slides/slides-90-rtgwg-2.pdf> Bruno, I don't think either of these as being a problem. For RTGWG to take on new work it needs to be noted in the charter and that in turn needs to be approved by the IESG. Minor, non-controversial, items are nodded through so there is no drama there. However part of the discussion with the AD would surely be whether the work belonged in RTGWG, or some other WG, and thus matter such as you are concerned about would normally be handled on a case by case basis. I therefore would be reluctant to see anything in the charter on this (the concept not the specific drafts) because every case is different. Right.. Not referring specifically to Bruno's work (or any other specific draft).. Any proposed work in the WG will be considered individually (of course, some proposals may have multiple drafts). As with any work, large or small, the WG will have to reach consensus to adopt, move forward, etc. IOW, just because something doesn't fit in another WG, or because it spans multiple WGs, the acceptance as a WG item in rtgwg is not guaranteed: that's what discussion and consensus are for. None of that is new or different..it is normal WG operation and (agreeing with Stewart) shouldn't have to be explicitly spelled out in the charter. The only thing that is new in the charter is that if the WG decides that the work should be looked at by a different WG, then we don't just tell people to "go away", we (the chairs) "will recommend the work to the Routing ADs with a summary of the evaluation." The intent is that this will help have a better handoff between WGs, as needed. This brings me to suggest a change to the charter text. Right now it reads: If RTGWG decides that a particular topic should be addressed by a new WG, the chairs will recommend the work to the Routing ADs with a summary of the evaluation. Proposal: s/new WG/different WG (new or existing) Thanks! Alvaro.
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
