Subject: [PMOL] FW: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08:(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:04:28 +0100

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Adrian Farrel
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 12:35 AM
To: The IESG
Cc: [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Adrian Farrel's Discuss on
draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08:(with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pmol-metrics-framework-08: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with Ron that if what is wanted is a Directorate, it should
simply be created by the AD. Furthermore, I am worried that codifying
the directorate in this document is implying changes to the IETF process
that are not acceptable.

I strongly support the guidelines part of this document (which feels
Informational), but recommend that all reference to the directorate be
removed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1.1

   Although the IETF has two active Working Groups (WGs) dedicated to
   the development of Performance Metrics, they each have strict
   limitations in their charters:

You seem to fail to list the PMOL WG. Is Section 1.1 simply trying to
justify the creation of PMOL? If so it can be removed from the document
because the WG seems to exist :-)