Re: Fw: WG Review: Provisioning Registry Protocol (provreg)

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

At 11:19 PM 2/3/2001 -0500, Edward Lewis wrote:
>I don't know if the IESG would rather us be starting
>from documents existing prior to the WG formation, or would rather us have
>a charter indicating a clean slate.

Typically the IESG reacts to choices by the working group, rather than 
attempting to do proactive management.  This involves a precept of the 
IETF, which is that working groups are largely expected to know what is 
needed for them to accomplish their tasks.

I do not recall seeing any traffic on the list that objected to citing the 
document.  As I noted, in fact the document has substantial support.  (I'll 
be more explicit:  I know of folks who would have been delighted to shoot 
it down.  They studied the thing carefully and decided that it was fine.)

So was the removal based on feedback from the AD, IESG, or what?


>I am doing the best I can to make sure we don't jump the gun on the
>process, fail to invite as much comment on this protocol as is needed, and
>yet still get a timely specification done within the IETF.

One cannot fault such sentiments.  They are entirely appropriate.  The 
reason I am pursuing this, however, is that IETF fairness and openness 
permit more management flexibility than is often appreciated, and the 
reason for the flexibility is to assist in making forward progress, 
especially when there is a sense of urgency.

As I've noted, there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about citing a 
particular draft as a basis, given good support and a clear understanding 
that the working group is ultimately empowered to make whatever changes it 
deems appropriate.  This does not fail to invite comment.  Rather, it 
focuses it.

At any rate, we have both stated our views thoroughly.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg Consulting   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464