RE: WG consensus on direction

Hi,

Since the synchronization issue was explicitly included as part of the
WG last call for each of the documents, I believe all the documents
could be impacted. Dan and I opened this topic for discussion
previously, and few people responded. The majority of those who
responded did not appear to want to synchronize because it will be a
long drawn-out effort to hit a moving target. 

My message was motivated by John Flick's review, which requests
synchronization to current IEEE documents in a number of places.
Before deciding that those requests are out of scope because we are
not doing synchronization to current documents, I wanted to encourage
people to speak up on the topic so we could gauge the consensus better
on this topic.

David Harrington
[email protected]
co-chair, IETF Bridge WG
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 7:41 PM
> To: David B Harrington
> Cc: [email protected]; 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 'Congdon, 
> Paul T (ProCurve)'
> Subject: Re: [Bridge-mib] WG consensus on direction
> 
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 04:18:39PM -0500, David B Harrington wrote:
>  
> > At this point, Dan and I are working on the assumption that WG 
> > consensus is to get our documents into a stable state and 
> published as 
> > an RFC before transitioning responsibility for further 
> updates to the 
> > IEEE. This topic was identified as an open issue as part of the WG

> > last call.
> > 
> > This chartered work started before 1D-2004 was approved. I 
> believe we 
> > are not trying to update to the latest state of IEEE 
> documents, but to 
> > finalize work that was started three years ago - updates to
include 
> > support for 1t, 1u, 1v, etc., not for 1D-2004.
> > 
> > If WG consensus is that we should try to synchronize to the
current 
> > IEEE documents, then I believe we will need to re-charter. 
> Given the 
> > lack of participatioin in this WG, I have strong doubts a 
> re-charter 
> > would be approved.
> > 
> > If WG consensus is that we should not publish something known to
be 
> > out of date, we can ask the IEEE 802.1 WG to take our documents
"as 
> > is", do the synchronization, and let them finalize and 
> publish what we 
> > have been unable to finalize and publish.
> > 
> > Everybody speak up as to what direction you want to take -
finalize 
> > the current, out-of-sync documents, re-charter to 
> synchronize, or turn 
> > them over to the IEEE for completion?
> 
> Does this synchronization issue affect both documents in the same
way?
> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
> <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 
> 28725 Bremen, Germany
>