Subject: [GROW] Call for WG Adoption - draft-manderson-grow-geomrt-00

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:00:55 -0400

The meeting today had a call for WG Adoption of the subject document.
Given 14 days of debate time means we decide Aug 12 2010.

-chris
co-chair

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:02:56 +0000

Administrative comment:

> Given 14 days of debate time means we decide Aug 12 2010.

If they are only interested in a FCFS code point, then having the document
as a WG document isn't necessary.  This is the main distinction with the
other document required code points.

-- Jeff

---

From: Terry Manderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:30:40 -0700

Hi Jeff,

> other document required code points.

Thanks for the comment, I am confused about this however.

The draft isn't only about acquiring a code-point. It is about providing
knowledge back to the networking community covering, what I think, a useful
mechanism to match BGP updates to a geographic location that endures
historical inspection.

Even if the code point is FCFS (which means I can reset the document status
to informational) I still think it could be of value, and I think it might
benefit from WG review. However I will acquiesce to the WG decision.

Or have I misinterpreted your point?

Cheers
Terry

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:02:34 +0000

> Or have I misinterpreted your point?

Simply to reinforce that the authors could choose the path of an independent
submission if the WG doesn't adopt the draft.  Since they're effecitvely
guaranteed a code point, it's not a blocker.

That said, WG review would be reasonable and I still support it as a WG
document. :-)

-- Jeff

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:36:07 +0200

> Given 14 days of debate time means we decide Aug 12 2010.

The material in the document seems like it has use cases, and the encoding of the data seems like it might benefit from working group review.

I support this document being adopted by the working group.

Joe