Re: discussion topics for the mail list

Mark,

> Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> >>>1. draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt: Does this version
> >>>adequately address the Radius issues raised so that it can now become a
> >>>WG document?
> >>
> >>There has been a good bit of open technical participation on this list such
> >>that the document is taking on a WG tone already. Making it a WG document 
> >>seems to be the next logical step.
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry, Mark, the fact that there is a discussion/open technical
> > participation DOES NOT qualify the doc as a WG doc; by no stretch
> 
> What, would you instead count the number of people chiming in
> with "[I,My company] supports this draft" type comments?
> 
> I obviously thought that the technical participation thus far was supportive 
> of the document. But in case there is any question, I will restate:
> 
> "There has been a good bit of support and open technical participation on 
> this list such that the document is taking on a WG tone already."
> 
> > is "the next logical step" to make this a WG doc.  I think Rick is
> > doing the right thing in calling for WG consensus.
> 
> The actual question that should be raised is consensus of whether or not the 
> mechanism being proposed in general is something that the WG should and is 
> willing to address with a document or not. It certainly helps to have a 
> well-written and reviewed document to articulate this effectively and generate
> discussion, but the real focus should be on whether the topic at hand is a 
> legitimate WG effort more than on whether a given individual submission has 
> reached some level of readiness or not. 

We can argue on what should be the "the actual question that should be
raised", but that is *not* the topic of this discussion. This discussion is
about the specific document, namely draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt.

Yakov.

P.S. Since Rick asked for WG consensus, I don't think that 
draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt is ready to be the WG document.