Hi,
I am sorry I procrastinated for so long to close the acceptance call.
Below are the questions I've asked on the mailing list:
1) Is the problem described/solved by
draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02 actually a problem that the WG needs
to address? (Answer: yes or no. Additional information is welcomed,
but I don't want people to repeat the whole discussion.)
2) If you answered "yes" to the question #1, please also answer the
following question:
Is draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting-02 a reasonable starting point to
become a WG document? Please choose one of the following:
a) Ready for Adoption (whether or not you have some specific issues
with it. Also, this answer is unrelated to whether this should be a
separate draft or a part of an existing draft).
b) Needs more work BEFORE Adoption
c) Should not be adopted. In particular this mean that you don't
believe any amount of work on the proposed draft will address your
issues. So any solution to this problem should be a new draft written
from scratch.
d) Abstain/don't care
3) If you answered "a" or "b" above, please also answer the following
question:
Does this need to be in a standalone draft, or can it be incorporated
into another existing WG draft? When answering this question please
only base your answer on technical reasons, in particular please leave
the decision on who is going to edit the document (if it is
standalone) to WG chairs.
Summary of results:
Responded: 7 people
Q1: Yes - 5 (or 5.5 :-))
Q2: Adopt: 1, Need more work: 2 (1.5), Don't adopt: 4
Q3: Standalone: 2, Fold into existing: 1 (others didn't respond or don't
care)
So, there is a problem to be solved, but people don't want to use the
existing draft as the starting point. There is no WG agreement to accept
draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting as a WG document. (Randy can continue to
work on draft-ymbk-rpki-grandparenting as he sees fit.)
Alexey,
On behalf of SIDR WG Chairs.
-------------
Raw data:
Brian Dickson:
Q1: Yes, there is a problem alluded to that might need to be solved.
Q2: C - no, this draft is not the place to solve the problem
Warren Kumari:
Q1: Yes, it is a problem that I believe the WG should address…. I don't
think it is the most important issue on our plate but I do think it is
worth addressing.
Q2: a. I believe that 1: starting from somewhere is useful (and this is
somewhere) and 2: once the WG owns the doc it can make whatever changes
it wants (well, is able to reach consensus on :-P)
Q3: What? There is no "Abstain/don't care" option for 3? ;-)
Byron Ellacott:
Q1: No (with a 'but' under q.2).
IOW, there IS a problem, but it's not one for a technical working group
to resolve, it's one for bilateral business relationships to resolve.
Q2: Don't adopt (c).
Terry Manderson:
Q1: Yes.
Q2: Don't adopt (c).
Stephen Kent:
Q1: Yes
Q2: Needs more work before adopting
Q3: I don't recall another, extant WG draft with which this might be
combined.
Wes George:
Q1: Yes, but I tend to agree that it's not a technical problem.
Q2: b. (need more work) The text itself is ok, but we need to resolve #3
before adoption.
Q3: It needs to be incorporated into an existing draft.
This text is covering a very specific gotcha with some helpful
recommendations and no actual requirements. It currently reads like an
orphaned section of another draft, probably the operational
considerations (origin-ops) draft.
Andy Newton:
Q1: At present, I think not. While this is interesting, I don't think
the IETF is the venue for this document as the subject is not technical.
Q3: Should it be adopted, I think it should be standalone.
_______________________________________________
sidr mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
