Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[Loa Andersson <loa.andersson@utfors.se>]

All,


don't know if my opinion registred in this show of hands. Anyway I say
(a). It is an identified problem, we need to deal with it and by making
a WG doc, the working groupd can start working with it.

/Loa

Ping Pan wrote:

> Kireeti,
> 
> 
> The requirement from Ron address the problem that we have been seen in 
> the network today. This is an issue that we have to deal with it NOW. I 
> vote (a).
> 
> - Ping
> 
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:47 PM
>>> To: David Allan
>>> Cc: neil.2.harrison@bt.com; Ronald.P.Bonica@wcom.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>>> Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>   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?
>>> (b) it's good stuff, but not ready?
>>> (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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Loa Andersson
Chief Architect,
Utfors Research, Architecture and Future Lab (URAX)
Utfors AB
Råsundavägen 12
Box 525, 169 29 Solna
Office          +46 8 5270 2000
Office direct   +46 8 5270 5038
Mobile          +46 70 848 5038
Email           loa.andersson@utfors.se
WWW             www.utfors.se