RE: discussion topics for the mail list

Yakov,

Please can you give the reasons why you think the draft is not ready to be
made a WG document?

Thanks,
Richard

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:[email protected]]
 > Sent: 16 June 2003 17:51
 > To: W. Mark Townsley
 > Cc: Kireeti Kompella; [email protected]; [email protected]
 > Subject: 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.
 > 
 > 
 >