Subject: [Bier] status of draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 08:41:49 -0700

Dear BIER WG participants, situation of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements/ is
unsatisfactory at this point in time.

The draft was adopted around 2015 but did not elicit any comments or
significant technical changes for the 5 years following or during the WGLC
(which was bundled with 2 other drafts on top). Only activity were some
private discussions among the authors as to the content of the authors
list. A shepherd was assigned quite a while ago, no write-down was provided
and no activity was seen. Given that the response to authors as to their
participation and call for two volunteers to act as editors met with, ehem,
underwhelming response, it looks like we may be flogging a dead horse
forward here towards publication.

Hence, I would suggest that we call a WG LC consensus again to gauge the
interest on this draft. We will need multiple people across multiple
organizations explaining support with more than just "+1" mail and
obviously having read the draft and ideally commenting why they think this
draft is WGLC ready & should be published. On top I suggest that we need
the shepherd to read/comment on the draft. If we get that together then the
document should be forwarded towards IESG (with diminished authors' list
per latest feedbacks given) or otherwise we move it to "Dead WG Document"
status and we may warm it up in the future should the interest perk up.

Opinions? Otherwise the according calls will go to the list in next couple
days ...

thanks

--- tony

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 12:17:17 -0700

Hi Tony, Greg, et al.,
thank you for the most detailed explanation of the state of this document
and where it can go from here. I believe that the document is an important
part of the overall work on the OAM toolset in BIER. As that work is not
yet complete the publication of the draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements would
help those interested in further developing BIER OAM. On the other hand, to
the best of my understanding and please correct me if I'm wrong here, the
headstone saying "Dead WG Document" would not remove it from the list of
documents on BIER WG page and it can be easily accessed by anyone
interested to read. Also, would marking it as "Dead WG Document" affect the
progress of solution-proposing drafts that use
draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements as an informational reference? If there
will be no negative impact, then I'd conclude with "it would be nice to
publish but the other way is okay too". I hope I didn't confuse you all.

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 8:42 AM Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> BIER mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bier
>

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 13:43:01 -0700

On April 16, 2020 at 3:17:38 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:

Greg:

Hi!

Answering only the parts about the document states.  The decision
about the document itself is up to the WG.

...
See rfc6174: Definition of IETF Working Group Document States

> On the other hand, to the best of my understanding and please correct me if
> I'm wrong here, the headstone saying "Dead WG Document" would not remove it
> from the list of documents on BIER WG page and it can be easily accessed by
> anyone interested to read.

>From §4.2.6:

   A "Dead WG Document" is an I-D that has been abandoned.  Note that
   'Dead' is not always a final state for a WG I-D.  If consensus is
   subsequently achieved, a "Dead WG Document" may be resurrected.  A
   "Dead WG Document" that is not resurrected will eventually expire.

Given that all drafts are now archived regardless of the state, it
will still be available.  I believe that a document will show up in
the datatracker while not expired.

> Also, would marking it as "Dead WG Document" affect the progress of
> solution-proposing drafts that use draft-ietf-bier-oam-requirements as an
> informational reference?

Having a draft (any draft) as an Informative reference shouldn't be a
showstopper for publication.

However, if the reference is used to justify the need for a specific
solution or to point at specific requirements, then someone could
question the "abandoned" nature of the work, and whether the document
reflects the consensus of the WG.

> If there will be no negative impact, then I'd conclude with "it would be nice
> to publish but the other way is okay too". I hope I didn't confuse you all.

Not publishing a support document like this one is in line with the
IESG statement about Support Documents in IETF Working Groups [1].  As
the responsible AD, not publishing is perfectly fine with me.

Following Tony's suggestion of WGLCing the document...  If the WG
wants to be able to reference this draft in the future, the WGLC
should explicitly consider that question (along with the others Tony
mentioned).  The current version doesn't have to be the final version
of the document and the WG is able (if there's interest) to keep
working on it -- just like any other document.

If the WG decides to keep the draft as reference material, a more
appropriate status may be "Adopted for WG Info Only" or simply "WG
Document".  From rfc6174:

===
4.2.3.  Adopted for WG Info Only

   The "Adopted for WG Info Only" state describes a document that
   contains useful information for the WG that adopted it, but the
   document is not intended to be published as an RFC.  The WG will not
   actively develop the contents of the I-D or progress it for
   publication as an RFC.  The only purpose of the I-D is to provide
   information for internal use by the WG.

4.2.4.  WG Document

   The "WG Document" state describes an I-D that has been adopted by an
   IETF WG and is being actively developed.
===

Alvaro.

[1] https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/support-documents/