Subject: Re: [Bier] Pete Resnick's No Objection on charter-ietf-bier-00-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 17:09:54 -0500

Pete & Spencer,

I think there are three types of non protocol drafts in the bier charter.

First, there is one use-case draft.  I think this is very useful for
setting the BIER
work into context but I am not a fan of having a lot of use-case drafts.
As a
compromise, I'm happy to see the current draft be worked on and advanced; it
shouldn't be a perfect example of all use-cases but rather articulate the
ones that
are sufficient to motivate the work.

Second, there are applicability drafts.  These are to describe how to use
existing
protocols with BIER in the network.  Some may end up being standards track
and
some not.  Since BIER doesn't own the protocols, this can also provide a
way to
document what features are missing - until companion drafts in those
protocol WGs
are written - and then live on describing how the protocol and BIER
interact.

Third, there is the Deployment Evaluation.  I think that this will want to
live as an
RFC because it will guide operators in understanding the experienced
trade-offs and
benefits from using BIER.  It will also help determine if and when the BIER
work
should transition from Experimental to Standards Track.

I do see Pete's point as far as "a document" and have updated the
Applicability
Statements part to say "The WG will describe how BIER can be  applied to
multicast
L3VPN and to EVPN." without requiring a particular number of documents.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-bier-00-03: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bier/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not a big fan of specifying in the charter that the WG will "produce
> a document" for anything that is not protocol, nor do I think it's a good
> idea to specify the number of particular documents a WG will produce at
> all: WGs often discover that they should combine or split different
> pieces of the protocol, and I think that's almost always a management
> task for the chairs and the WG, not something in the "contract" with the
> IESG and the rest of the community. For non-protocol documents, it's
> often turns out better to publish these as an updatable wiki instead of
> trying to finalize 'the one true RFC', and I certainly wouldn't want to
> constrain them to an "Informational RFC" in particular. I'm not going to
> stand in the way if you think that this particular group of folks would
> best be guided by specifying these things and having them written into
> the charter, but I did want to voice my concern.
>
>
>