Subject: RE: discussion about document publishing

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 08:20:02 +0100

Tony Hain writes:
> 
> The point I was trying to raise at the mic was that we don't 
> need to publish in parallel with the working group if the
> working group will simply publish the documents on the table.
> There still appears to be a desire to kill these
> transition tools. The BS about allowing them to be 
> Experimental is nothing more than trying to duck the issue. 
> 
I believe that allowing them to be published as experimental or
informational allows you to publish them ASAP. This to document
CURRENT IMPLEMENTATIONs, not document current implementation 
plus extra things that might be implemented.

> I can't get back to the mic...
> WE DON'T HAVE TO MEASURE DEPLOYMENT FOR PS !!!!
> 
Correct.

> The mechanisms that solve the identified scenarios all need 
> to be on the standards track.
> There is no need for delay and long evaluation.
>
We do need standards track solutions indeed. BUT, to come to consensus
on which one (or maybe few) solutions should be on the standards track
will probably take a somewhat long(er) time. If you prefer that, then
that may be an alternative.

Bert 
> Tony

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:34:27 -0800

Wijnen, Bert wrote:
> ...

There will not be a one-size-fits-all transition mechanism. As Jordi
described at the mic on Monday, a single laptop (like mine) might need all
of them over the period of a single multi-city trip. 

I have no problem dropping mechanisms that do not fit in our scenarios. My
issue is the apparent attempt to thwart the working group from progressing
as standards the mechanisms that their customers are in fact using. This
'publish them as Experimental' approach is not about getting them
progressing along the standards track. The only reason to keep them off the
standards track is to only allow a working group doc out when it is ready
for DS. That is not how we develop standards track documents. 

Tony

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 00:02:40 -0800

The consensus call was somewhat bogus. The lead in discussion from the chair
said we either publish as experimental or publish nothing. Clearly people
will pick any opportunity to publish something, because they are frustrated
with lack of progress.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Tony Hain
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 11:34 PM
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: discussion about document publishing
> 
> Wijnen, Bert wrote:
> > ...

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:12:07 -0500

Will the issues that we are voting on here in the v6ops WG meeting be taken
to the v6ops mailing list for final resolution?

- Ralph

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:29:43 +0200 (EET)

> to the v6ops mailing list for final resolution?

Yes.

 Pekka & Jonne

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 10:33:30 +0200 (EET)

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Tony Hain wrote:
> said we either publish as experimental or publish nothing. 

I said basically, "publish with informational/experimental (plus 
caveats) or do something else which may be publish as e.g. PS, or not 
publish at all.

> Clearly people will pick any opportunity to publish something,
> because they are frustrated with lack of progress.

(personal opinion only)
Well, the WG seemed to require more analysis before making a decision, 
so let's hope we'll improve over time...  That may not help in trying 
to move forward.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings