Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

WG, we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to our initial proposal. After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as a way forward: At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for knowledge of existing

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Martin, That sounds reasonable to me. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Martin Vigoureux < martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > WG, > > we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to > our initial proposal. > After thinking further about that,

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Martin, for me this seems a reasonable way forward On 14/12/15 10:28, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" wrote: >WG, > >we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response >to our initial proposal.

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

My opinion is unchanged; there is no need to impose any implementation requirement, nor is there any need to add more process hurdles that further slow down the progress of a document towards publication. Certainly there is no need to gather details about implementations, vendor releases,

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

g > Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before > WG last calls > > WG, > > we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to > our initial proposal. > After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as a

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Martin, Sounds like solid and reasonable approach! Regards, Jeff > On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Martin Vigoureux > wrote: > > WG, > > we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to our > initial proposal. > After thinking

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

I am very strongly opposed to this "proposal". It takes the WG in the wrong direction, and attempts explicitly to undo the work that led to RFC4794, which eliminated some of the time-wasting requirements that served only to further extend the already slow IETF process. The right time to

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

015 11:33 PM > To: Martin Vigoureux; bess@ietf.org > Cc: Benson Schliesser; Joel M. Halpern > Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG > last calls > > I am very strongly opposed to this "proposal". > > It takes the WG in the wrong

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls Hi Adrian, indeed, minutes should have been available sooner. situation has been corrected. The basic motivation for this

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Hello Kireeti, thanks for your inputs. I understand the challenge that "release x.y @shipping date d" might pose. What we want, is to go beyond the "I am aware of an implementation" type of response. It might currently be sufficient with regards to the shepherd write-up question, but won't be

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Kireeti, Martin, Any data related to a serious implementation (even a beta without a shipping date), would I think be convincing enough. "release x.y @shipping date d" was simply provided as a possible answer, not of the minimum requirement to be convincing. As Martin said we need more than

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin > Sent: 26 November 2015 13:50 > To: bess@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG > last calls > > Kireeti, Martin, > > Any data related to a serious imple

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

tial > actions that could be taken to reach the objective, actions which are > relevant during the I-D life cycle within the WG. But I guess this is a > broader discussion. > > > >> Adrian (still thinking about this) >> >> -Original Message- >>> From

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

cing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls Hi Adrian, indeed, minutes should have been available sooner. situation has been corrected. The basic motivation for this is simply to avoid (over)loading the iesg with documents that have no (and could possibly never have an) impl

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Joel, Benson, hello. I agree that there has not been a lengthy discussion during the session but some people reacted to the proposal and expressed their support. Joel, on the specific point that a discussion in a meeting is informative, I fully agree, and the point of our e-mail is to

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Sent: 24 November 2015 23:17 To: bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls Hi Adrian, indeed, minutes should have been avai

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

for publication. The question is how to achieve that. Adrian (still thinking about this) > -Original Message- > From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux > Sent: 24 November 2015 23:17 > To: bess@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementat

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

I think this may be a useful "procedural bar" and if so then I'd like to see it implemented in other WGs, too... And, to some extent, it may be within the prerogative of the WG chairs. But I am also surprised by the lack of discussion. And I don't see any substantial conversation documented in the

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Without wanting to be pedantic, I would have expected to see discusison of this on the list, and determination that the list agreed with it. Discussion at the meeting is informative, but is not the basis for a WG decision. I am also slightly concerned that the working group is creating a

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

Hi Adrian, indeed, minutes should have been available sooner. situation has been corrected. The basic motivation for this is simply to avoid (over)loading the iesg with documents that have no (and could possibly never have an) implementation. Or, at least, if every spec gets implemented, it

Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG last calls

rise to simple and stupid behavior." --- Dee Hock > -Original Message- > From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:03 AM > To: BESS > Subject: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before W