Subject: [Roll] Clarification on draft-ietf-roll-protocols-survey

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 12:56:50 +0100

In view of the discussion on this document, I thought I should  step in and 
give my opinion and recollections.

Geoff originally said:

> This is a working group
> document and is part of the milestones and charter of the ROLL WG

It is true that the document shows as a working group milestone on the 
charter page. There is, however, no specific charter task that I see for the 
production of this document.

Clearly the document was particularly useful to the working group in 
reaching its consensus to start work on RPL. The work of the authors and 
contributors was valuable and by no means a waste of time. The document has 
served its purpose.

When the charter was written and the milestones composed it seemed the 
logical progression to produce this document. But time has moved on, and 
events have over-taken the working group.

Continuing to spend working  group time on the analysis of other protocols 
and polishing a document that has served its purpose might not be considered 
as efficient.

As Alex points out...
>
> Last I remember is public discussion in february 2009 - it ended
> with a Chair statement intenting to use this draft as a motivation
> to recharter and develop new protocol.

And, indeed, the recharter took place based on the content of the survey 
document. It may have been a mistake at that time to not debate the 
continuation of the document and get the milestones updated.

Geoff asks:

> Which AD approved this action and again was this published on the
> mailing list

No AD approval is needed for a working group to not request
 publication of a draft.

I recall discussing this with the working group chairs at various points and 
agreeing that I would not require the WG to request publication. I should, 
however, have asked that the milestones be updated accordingly.

Alex also says:

> I think I have never seen a WG item stopped and got rid of.

> Well, this happens. If you search the archives you will see a good
> number of I-Ds with their tracker state as "Dead", and you will
> be able to find plenty of WG I-Ds that expired over the years and
> were never progressed to RFC.

Hope this helps.
Regards,
Adrian