WG,
we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response
to our initial proposal.
After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as
a way forward:
At the same time we issue a Working Group Last Call we would ask for
knowledge of existing
Martin,
That sounds reasonable to me.
Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Martin Vigoureux <
martin.vigour...@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> WG,
>
> we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to
> our initial proposal.
> After thinking further about that,
Martin, for me this seems a reasonable way forward
On 14/12/15 10:28, "BESS on behalf of Martin Vigoureux" wrote:
>WG,
>
>we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response
>to our initial proposal.
My opinion is unchanged; there is no need to impose any implementation
requirement, nor is there any need to add more process hurdles that
further slow down the progress of a document towards publication.
Certainly there is no need to gather details about implementations,
vendor releases,
g
> Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before
> WG last calls
>
> WG,
>
> we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to
> our initial proposal.
> After thinking further about that, we'd like to propose the following as a
Martin,
Sounds like solid and reasonable approach!
Regards,
Jeff
> On Dec 14, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Martin Vigoureux
> wrote:
>
> WG,
>
> we have reviewed the different comments posted on the list in response to our
> initial proposal.
> After thinking
I am very strongly opposed to this "proposal".
It takes the WG in the wrong direction, and attempts explicitly to undo
the work that led to RFC4794, which eliminated some of the time-wasting
requirements that served only to further extend the already slow IETF
process.
The right time to
015 11:33 PM
> To: Martin Vigoureux; bess@ietf.org
> Cc: Benson Schliesser; Joel M. Halpern
> Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG
> last calls
>
> I am very strongly opposed to this "proposal".
>
> It takes the WG in the wrong
Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation
requirement before WG
last calls
Hi Adrian,
indeed, minutes should have been available sooner. situation
has been
corrected.
The basic motivation for this
Hello Kireeti,
thanks for your inputs.
I understand the challenge that "release x.y @shipping date d" might
pose. What we want, is to go beyond the "I am aware of an
implementation" type of response. It might currently be sufficient with
regards to the shepherd write-up question, but won't be
Kireeti, Martin,
Any data related to a serious implementation (even a beta without a
shipping date), would I think be convincing enough.
"release x.y @shipping date d" was simply provided as a possible answer,
not of the minimum requirement to be convincing.
As Martin said we need more than
: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin
> Sent: 26 November 2015 13:50
> To: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before WG
> last calls
>
> Kireeti, Martin,
>
> Any data related to a serious imple
tial
> actions that could be taken to reach the objective, actions which are
> relevant during the I-D life cycle within the WG. But I guess this is a
> broader discussion.
>
>
>
>> Adrian (still thinking about this)
>>
>> -Original Message-
>>> From
cing a one-implementation requirement before WG
last calls
Hi Adrian,
indeed, minutes should have been available sooner. situation has been
corrected.
The basic motivation for this is simply to avoid (over)loading the iesg
with documents that have no (and could possibly never have an)
impl
Joel, Benson,
hello.
I agree that there has not been a lengthy discussion during the session
but some people reacted to the proposal and expressed their support.
Joel, on the specific point that a discussion in a meeting is
informative, I fully agree, and the point of our e-mail is to
Sent: 24 November 2015 23:17
To: bess@ietf.org <mailto:bess@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation
requirement before WG
last calls
Hi Adrian,
indeed, minutes should have been avai
for publication. The
question is how to achieve that.
Adrian (still thinking about this)
> -Original Message-
> From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Vigoureux
> Sent: 24 November 2015 23:17
> To: bess@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [bess] Introducing a one-implementat
I think this may be a useful "procedural bar" and if so then I'd like to
see it implemented in other WGs, too... And, to some extent, it may be
within the prerogative of the WG chairs. But I am also surprised by the
lack of discussion. And I don't see any substantial conversation documented
in the
Without wanting to be pedantic, I would have expected to see discusison
of this on the list, and determination that the list agreed with it.
Discussion at the meeting is informative, but is not the basis for a WG
decision.
I am also slightly concerned that the working group is creating a
Hi Adrian,
indeed, minutes should have been available sooner. situation has been
corrected.
The basic motivation for this is simply to avoid (over)loading the iesg
with documents that have no (and could possibly never have an)
implementation. Or, at least, if every spec gets implemented, it
rise to simple and stupid
behavior."
--- Dee Hock
> -Original Message-
> From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morin
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 1:03 AM
> To: BESS
> Subject: [bess] Introducing a one-implementation requirement before W
21 matches
Mail list logo