At 04:46 PM 2/24/2002 -0800, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
>Let me say a few words:
>
>1) There was good support for this work (the requirements doc) to
> be a WG document at a previous IETF. It is a good thing to
> follow up and check what the mailing list thinks, as not everyone
> attends IETFs.
>
>2) It is interesting that no one brought up the issue of whether this
> work (tunnel tracing) is in the charter or not at the meeting.
> There are those who think the charter isn't explicit enough. I'll
> talk to the ADs and see (a) if they think that this *is* in the
> charter; (b) if not, are they willing to take it to the IESG and
> add it to the charter.
>
> My input on this (as WG chair) is that CCAMP is all about tunnels,
> and a protocol to debug and test tunnels is well within scope, even
> if not called out explicitly.
Agreed.
> Note that the charter is *not* subject to WG consensus, nor even
> the WG chairs. The IESG (and IAB?) are solely responsible,
> although the WG and chairs can suggest changes.
>
>3) A document that is "in the right spirit" can become a WG document,
> even if there are disagreements about some details, and even
> "fundamental" questions. Note that "fundamental" is often
> subjective.
>
>I would like to have the mailing list equivalent of a 'show of hands'
>regarding this draft. Do you think:
>(a) it should be a WG document?
Yes.
>(b) it's good stuff, but not ready?
The draft has some things to work out, but that
can be done through WG input after it becomes a
WG draft.
--Tom
>(c) we need a new start?
>
>Please send in your opinions with one of the above up top. Any
>detailed reasoning you have for your opinion may follow.
>
>Thanks!
>Kireeti.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.