On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 10:17:17PM +0200, Eric Rosen wrote:
Generally, the community (i.e., the folks doing the work in the various
areas) has never even heard about these proposed requirements until after a
BCP appears, at which time they are told that the BCP has community
Sam,
Thank you for your review and opinions.
I would like to remind you and let many people that are not aware about
the history of the document know one fact that may be important. This
document is an outcome of the discussions hold at the IESG retreat in
May 2006. I was then the 'fresh' AD
Dan == Romascanu, Dan (Dan) droma...@avaya.com writes:
Dan Sam, Thank you for your review and opinions.
Dan I would like to remind you and let many people that are not
Dan aware about the history of the document know one fact that
Dan may be important. This document is an
Hi Sam,
A clarification and a clarification question in-line.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:hartmans-i...@mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:23 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Cc: Sam Hartman; ietf@ietf.org; ops...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call:
[this one more publicly]
Dan,
Based on the goals you set out below, I would argue that the document is
too long. I would recommend sticking with principles and calling out a
few examples. I think this is done reasonably well in Section 2, and
less so elsewhere. I would also suggest that
Adopting this document as a BCP would be a serious mistake, and I hope it
will be strongly opposed.
There is absolutely no evidence that following the dictates of this document
will improve the quality of the IETF's work, and we certainly know it won't
improve the timeliness. There is no
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
To put it differently, the OPS area has as much right to propose their
requirements as any other area (Transport Congestion, Security, ...)
has. And generally, the community has listened to such requests and
gone along with them.
Yes, we have produced a bit of a
This does not mean we have to simply accept what they (OPS) say. But it
does mean we should give it a fair review, looking at the details,
rather than objecting on principle.
This is absolute nonsense. Most of the people actually doing work in the
various areas do not have the time,
Eric == Eric Rosen ero...@cisco.com writes:
Eric If we are going to talk about adding new hoops for folks to
Eric jump through, we should first discuss whether any such hoops
Eric are necessary. We should not start the discussion by
Eric looking at the details of the particular
Eric == Eric Rosen ero...@cisco.com writes:
Eric I don't see that OPSAWG has any business imposing
Eric requirements on work done by other WGs in other Areas.
Obviously I agree with this statement. However I do believe that the
ops area can propose and build consensus on requirements
To put it differently, the OPS area has as much right to propose their
requirements as any other area (Transport Congestion, Security, ...)
has. And generally, the community has listened to such requests and
gone along with them.
Yes, we have produced a bit of a problem that our initial
11 matches
Mail list logo
