On 19. aug. 2014, at 12:07, Brian Trammell wrote: > hi Michael, > > On 19 Aug 2014, at 11:35, Michael Welzl <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi again, all, >> >> Did you notice that the two still existing milestones that we still have >> left also come with a status now? >> >> Before the London BOF, this bit was: >> >> *** >> * M7: Submit summary of the services provided by IETF transport protocols >> and congestion control mechanisms as well as requirements of common APIs to >> IESG as Informational >> * M10: Submit draft on how transport services are identified to IESG as >> Proposed Standard >> * M13: Submit set of services that a transport API should provide to IESG as >> Proposed Standard >> *** >> >> - before the Toronto BOF, I was told that there's no need for milestones to >> mention the status of documents, and I should just remove that. So we had, >> in the version of the charter that went to IETF open review, even after the >> Toronto BOF: >> >> *** >> * M9: Submit summary of the services provided by IETF transport protocols >> and congestion control mechanisms to IESG. >> * M15: Submit end system transport services to IESG. >> * M18: Submit specification of how the transport services can be provided to >> IESG. >> *** >> >> .... and now, all of a sudden, we have: > > So let's look at these one by one: > >> *** >> * M9: Submit to the IESG an Informational document defining a set of >> services provided by IETF transport protocols and congestion control >> mechanisms. > > I think this is pretty clearly Informational; it was also identified as such > pre-London, so I don't think this is particularly controversial as > Informational.
ACK. > (Not really relevant to the charter, but on this point as we discussed in the > hallway in Toronto, I think the right way to do this is to solicit > contributions from people in the community who have deep knowledge of certain > transport protocols to specify these in terms of their behaviors in > individual I-Ds or I-D sections, then to have an editor pull these together > into a coherent whole.) Indeed, not a charter suggestion but a good plan I think. >> * M15: Submit to the IESG an Informational document recommending a minimal >> set of Transport Services that end systems should support. > > In my opinion, whether this is PS or Info comes down to two questions: (1) is > there an interoperability reason to specify a set of services that > must/should/may/must not be provided by end systems and (2) will there be > normative references to it from future PS documents? What you say makes sense to me. I actually don't remember who proposed to make this PS and why, and I can live with both. I just wanted to bring the question back to the group, as it is a change to how things were originally written. We had PS written there for a long time, went to "no status mentioned" because it was said that it needs no mention, and now it's Informational. > I don't really have an opinion here, though I think I'd lean toward PS just > for the sake of future utility. Note that if this milestone is PS it will > have to restate the salient points of each selected behavior / > service-in-terms-of-behaviors from the first milestone in normative language. > I'm okay with that too. Me too... sounds like we should go back to PS on this one, then. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
