• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: opsawg

Current state: WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-05-13 08:43 Benoit Claise

Changed document writeup

2013-01-23 08:44 Tom Taylor

New revision available

2013-01-17 00:24 (System)

Document has expired

2013-01-17 00:24 (System)

State changed to Dead from AD is watching

2012-08-16 10:40 Cindy Morgan

State changed to AD is watching from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead

2012-08-16 08:32 Pete Resnick

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Brian's DISCUSS.

5.1: Is PPP not worth mentioning here?

2012-08-16 08:32 Pete Resnick

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick

2012-08-15 13:02 Ralph Droms

[Ballot discuss]
In my opinion, the title of this document is inaccurate. Any problem
statement is interleaved with the solution model, the problem is
incompletely described (is this document aimed at configuring any network
device, just customer edge devices, constrained devices; what is the
relationship between the networks in the inter-domain case), and the
problems derive in many cases from the assumed solution.

I *think* there is a useful set of abstract, solution independent
problems somewhere in the document, but I don't think the document is
of value in its current form.

My action to clear this Discuss would be for the working group to
rewrite the document, extracting the problems from the rest of the
solution framework, taxonomy, etc.

Brian very clearly stated several specific issues with the document
and I support his Discuss on those issues.

2012-08-15 13:02 Ralph Droms

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ralph Droms

2012-08-15 12:05 Barry Leiba

[Ballot discuss]
After some discussion and further consideration on this, I'm changing my position to DISCUSS: I don't see where this document is going, what its value is, and how it meets the goals it purports to set out. Brian's DISCUSS text says it all excellently, so I'll refer to that for more detail.

2012-08-15 12:05 Barry Leiba

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to Discuss from No Objection

2012-08-15 10:46 Martin Stiemerling

[Ballot comment]
I'm in support of the other DISCUSSes and do have an issue with the draft as it is right now. It is rather confusing and is probably neglecting the fact that there are working mechanisms on automated network configuration for a number of access network technologies.

I have also doubts that the draft really represents the consensus of the WG. The shepherd write-up hints to this. Lines starting with > are from the shepherd write-up.

> (6) The only concern that the shepherd has about the document is the relatively limited discussion about the contents of the document that took place as well as what could be a relatively limited impact of the document itself (i.e. how much change in behavior or process that the document will actually engender).

> (9) This document has the strong consensus of a subset of the working group, with the remainder of the working group silent.

Furthermore, I do doubt that level of review was sufficient:
> (5) The working group does not believe that any other specialized review is necessary of the document.
But, did somebody with BBF or 3GPP background review the draft?

I do also miss the conclusion in the shepherd write-up for this question:
> 1) Was this work actually going to change behavior of the reader. Was there substantive value in the material presented.

2012-08-15 10:46 Martin Stiemerling

Ballot comment text updated for Martin Stiemerling

2012-08-15 10:45 Martin Stiemerling

[Ballot comment]
I'm in support of the other DISCUSSes and do have an issue with the draft as it is right now. It is rather confusing and is probably neglecting the fact that there are working mechanisms on automated network configuration for a number of access network technologies.

I have also doubts if the draft really represents the consensus of the WG. The shepherd write-up hints to this:
> (6) The only concern that the shepherd has about the document is the relatively limited discussion about the contents of the document that took place as well as what could be a relatively limited impact of the document itself (i.e. how much change in behavior or process that the document will actually engender).

> (9) This document has the strong consensus of a subset of the working group, with the remainder of the working group silent.

Furthermore, I do doubt that some more review would have been appropriate:
> (5) The working group does not believe that any other specialized review is necessary of the document.
But, did somebody with BBF or 3GPP background review the draft?

I do also miss the conclusion in the shepherd write-up for this question:
> 1) Was this work actually going to change behavior of the reader. Was there substantive value in the material presented.

2012-08-15 10:45 Martin Stiemerling

[Ballot Position Update] New position, Abstain, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling

2012-08-15 07:37 Russ Housley

[Ballot comment]

I agree with the suggestions made by Vijay Gurbani in the
Gen-ART Review posted on 13-Aug-2012. Please consider the
comments. The review can be found here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07678.html

2012-08-15 07:37 Russ Housley

[Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley

2012-08-15 00:22 (System)

State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call

2012-08-14 13:34 Sean Turner

[Ballot discuss]
1) general: it's not until s5 that term "constrained device" is used. Is this draft targeted specifically at that market segment or the more general case?

2) general: I don't think you should assume that further specifications are required for the gaps you've identified. I don't want to see this document used as a club later on to specify things that might turn out to not be needed or unwanted. It makes more sense to say these items require further study.

3) s4: I think that the "requirement" (noting the lower case) for an invariant ID is shared by many enterprise users, but I doubt my mom and dad want that. Is this targeted at devices to be included in enterprise networks or the general Internet case?

2012-08-14 13:34 Sean Turner

Ballot discuss text updated for Sean Turner

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.