Re: [IPFIX] IPFIX at IETF 89, London

Brian Trammell <[email protected]> Mon, 10 Feb 2014 17:41:33 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.ipfix
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

hi Joel, all,

On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:47, joel jaeggli <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2/10/14, 7:31 AM, Brian Trammell wrote:
>> There are a couple of questions here: (1) do we close / lay dormant /
>> recharter the working group (and what do we do with these two
>> drafts)? and (2) do we have a meeting in London?
> 
>> From my point of view I can say that both drafts are important, have
>> clearly had a good deal of discussion, and are probably at this point
>> of a quality that they could be adopted as WG items. We had an idea
>> in Vancouver that further work could be AD sponsored if the IPFIX WG
>> closed. Recent experience in trying to AD sponsor other IPFIX-related
>> drafts were not appreciated by the IESG, so I don’t think that’s an
>> option for these two. 
> 
> Was not appreciated by some members of the IESG. under the circumstances
> and for the document in question I think the method applied was entirely
> apprpiate and that the results will speak for themselves.

Would like to make clear I’m not complaining in any way about the outcome. :) But it is less clear to me that shuttering the WG and AD-sponsoring the equivalent-ies and unobserved-fields work is an acceptable way to move forward than it was in Vancouver.

Cheers,

Brian

_______________________________________________
IPFIX mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipfix

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 496 B)