Re: discussion topics for the mail list

Yakov Rekhter wrote:
> 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.

I believe Kireeti took the thread in this direction when he said:

"This is not a statement of my support or dissent for this document,
just a commentary on process."

However, if it is OK with him, I would be happy to get back to the discussion 
about draft-heinanen-radius-pe-discovery-04.txt. As such, could you kindly 
identify why you think this draft should not be a WG document?

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>