Eric> Not sure what you mean, it always takes time to produce a document,
Eric> even if the document is just a "rock fetch".
Harald> sorry; "rock fetch" is beyond my scope of American idiom.
"Rock fetch": when the "boss" sends the workers out on useless but
Harald> But version -01 of the framework document is dated July 19, 2001,
Harald> and the first version submitted to the IESG is dated February 15,
About six months to get the WG to agree on the framework, that doesn't seem
excessive for a document. It's a rock fetch though because there is no real
need for a framework document.
Harald> I took that as a hint that there might have been controversy in the
Harald> working group about it.
It was never a very controversial document. My recollection is that
framework and requirements were ready about January of 2002, which is why I
said that they were ready about 18 months ago. So were the protocol specs,
applicability statements, etc.
Eric> Well, each objection from the IESG needs to be discussed and a
Eric> response crafted.
Harald> which should take approximately 3 days of work, IMHO. Comments that
Harald> translate to "you are referencing an obsolete version of LDAP"
Harald> should take approximately 2 minutes to fix.
Comments which were received last fall (I first saw them a few weeks prior
to the Atlanta IETF meeting) required a considerable reworking of the
document. (Sisyphus comes to mind here ;-))
Harald> Did the WG declare consensus on all those documents 18 months ago
Harald> (January 2002)?
The WG was told by the WG chairs that the IESG would not allow the WG to
even consider the solutions documents until the framework and requirements
documents were approved by the IESG. Something is very wrong with the
The L3VPN protocol specs themselves haven't changed in years, which is a
good thing, given the large amount of interoperable deployment by multiple