Re: WG consensus on direction

Dave,

I guess the issue here is since we are intending to publish the
-ext-v2 draft as a standards-track document, can we get away with
normative references an RFC that we are about to move to Historic
(RFC 1493), or a superseded version of an IEEE standard.  If the
answer is yes, we can get away with it, let's just do it.  If not,
we need to decide whether we would rather update the references,
or perhaps just publish what we have as Informational.

Cheers,
John

David B Harrington wrote:

> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bridge-mib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge-mib
>