On 08/01/2015 12:13, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On 1/7/15, 3:52 PM, "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 05:18:12PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:
>>> Dear OpsAWG,
>>>
>>> This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-opsawg-operators-ietf.
>>>
>>> The draft is available here:
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-opsawg-operators-ietf/
>>>
>>
>> The I-D reports results from a survey. It is not a technical
>> specification that a working group can work on.
>
> The work intended is to further analyze the results and the situation they
> describe to identify additional solutions that may be actionable. These
> potential actions may come from the IETF, the Operator communities around
> the world, or possibly the ISOC.
>
> Simply reporting that we have found a set of problems is only part of the
> goal for this document. From the abstract:
>
> "The primary purpose of doing this is to start a conversation which we
> hope will lead to increases in the level of operational input and feedback
> to the IETF standards making process."
>
>> My recommendation would be to change the title to be more specific
>> that this document is a survey report and then to submit this document
>> as an individual submission to the RFC editor for publication. I do
>> not see that a WG process can add value to the survey report.
>
> We, the authors, considered that path (and had several ADs offer to
> sponsor the I-D as well). We believe however that this is absolutly one
> type of work the OpsAWG should take on: Building the intellectual capital
> of the IETF by making it easier and more likely for implementors (read:
> operators) to participate.
I agree. This is of very fundamental importance to the IETF and should
not be relegated to the Independent stream. I could imagine it being
handled by the General AD and we should encourage cross-area
participation (because, after all, the problem of operators not being
listened to is probably worse in all other areas). But as a home
for the draft, OPSAWG seems best.
Brian
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
