[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Begin WG Last Call: draft-psamp-framework-05.txt
I agree in principle with all you say, but I can hardly see how we can say that MUST requirements like the ones in 5.1 do not affect interoperability. It looks to me that you either need to put these requirements someplace else, or reconsider the status of the framework document. These are 'my good reasons'.
Although I have seen - as you did - requirements and framework documents having been assigned to the Informational category in other WGs, I hardly can agree that the content of such documents fall under what RFC 2026 defines as Informational.
An "Informational" specification is published for the general
information of the Internet community, and does not represent an
Internet community consensus or recommendation. The Informational
designation is intended to provide for the timely publication of a
very broad range of responsible informational documents from many
sources, subject only to editorial considerations and to verification
that there has been adequate coordination with the standards process
(see section 4.2.3).
Specifications that have been prepared outside of the Internet
community and are not incorporated into the Internet Standards
Process by any of the provisions of section 10 may be published as
Informational RFCs, with the permission of the owner and the
concurrence of the RFC Editor.
This may be one of these process problems that I know are being widely discussed in other IETF circles.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juergen Quittek [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: 02 February, 2004 4:13 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); email@example.com
> Subject: RE: Begin WG Last Call: draft-psamp-framework-05.txt
> Thanks for asking this question! In fact, the psamp WG has not yet
> discussed the target status of the framework document. And it is
> very good to have an agreement on this issue before closing WG last
> Similar discussions were already made in many other working groups
> facing the same issues:
> The psamp framework document describes the general idea of psamp
> and lists requirements for the protocol specification.
> For implementers it is a very good guideline that will help to
> understand the context of the core protocol specification.
> However, standardization is required only when interoperability
> is affected. Therefore, I see a good reason to go for standards
> track for the following three documents:
> - psamp protocol
> - psamp info model
> - psamp MIB
> These documents need to 'implement' all requirements and constraints
> set by the psamp framework and psamp packet selection documents.
> For both of these documents I do not see a need to make them standards
> track documents, but consider informational RFCs to be appropriate.
> This is in line with decisions on the RFC 'maturity level' (as RFC2026
> calls it) to be chosen for framework, architecture, and requirement
> documents made by other WGs, see for example the set of documents
> edited by the ipfix WG (as one example out of many).
> Maybe you have counter-examples or other good reasons for making the
> framework document standards track RFC. I'll be glad to discuss them.
> Juergen Quittek firstname.lastname@example.org Tel: +49
> 6221 90511-15
> NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49
> 6221 90511-55
> Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany
> --On 02.02.2004 15:33 Uhr +0200 Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> > Juergen,
> > I am wondering about the motivation of your decision to
> publish the framework document as informational. The charter
> says nothing about it. The document includes mandatory
> requirements (for example section 5.1 - Mandatory Contents of
> Packet Reports).
> > What is the 'nature of the document' that leads you (as WG
> Chair) to advice that this document falls under the
> definition of an Informational document, as per Section 4.2.2
> of RFC 2026?
> > Thanks and Regards,
> > Dan
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: email@example.com
> >> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Juergen Quittek
> >> Sent: 31 January, 2004 12:10 AM
> >> To: email@example.com
> >> Subject: Re: Begin WG Last Call: draft-psamp-framework-05.txt
> >> Dear all,
> >> Inline please find a small correction of the WG last call.
> >> --On 30.01.2004 19:39 Uhr +0100 Juergen Quittek wrote:
> >> > Dear all,
> >> >
> >> > The PSAMP WG has completed work on
> >> >
> >> > A Framework for Packet Selection and Reporting.
> >> >
> >> > The WG proposes that the I-D 'draft-psamp-framework-05.txt'
> >> > is the completed version of this document.
> >> >
> >> > The WG members are strongly urged to review this document as
> >> > soon as possible, and express any concerns, or identify
> any errors,
> >> > in an email to the PSAMP WG mailing list.
> >> >
> >> > Unless there are strong objections, published on the PSAMP
> >> WG mailing
> >> > list by Friday, February 20th, this document will be forwarded
> >> > to the OPS Area Directors for standards track consideration by
> >> > the IESG.
> >> This is not correct. Considering the nature of the document
> >> the target will be an informational RFC.
> >> Juergen
> >> > Please send all comments to the WG mailing list at
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Juergen
> >> > --
> >> > Juergen Quittek email@example.com Tel: +49
> >> 6221 90511-15
> >> > NEC Europe Ltd., Network Laboratories Fax: +49
> >> 6221 90511-55
> >> > Kurfuersten-Anlage 36, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany
> > http://www.ccrle.nec.de
> >> --
> >> to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
> >> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> >> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/>
> > --
> > to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
> > the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> > archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/psamp/>
to unsubscribe send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.