RE: WG dcoument status

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Thanks Kireeti for posting the status.
I have some comments inline asd well.

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 2:52 AM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: WG dcoument status
> 
> 
> Here's a status update.
> 
> The signaling drafts:
> 	draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-05.txt
> 	draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt
> 	draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt
> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
> have finished WG Last Call, and will be sent on to IETF Last Call.
> They are on the track for Proposed Standard.
> 
To be precise, the WG chairs will ask AD to consider the docs for PS
(Proposed Standard). AD then reviews and if happy asks iesg-secretary
to issue a 2 week IETF Last Call. After that IETF wide Last Call 
finishes, then, depending on comments if any, AD can put the documents
on the IESG agenda for final discussion/approval. 

> Bert Wijnen (AD) has suggested that there should be an implementation
> statement before these move on to IETF Last Call; the WG chairs and
> draft editors agreed.

Pls note that we discussed this in the SUB-IP Directorate and that a
wider set of people agreed. The reason why we do this is based on earlier
practice in the RTG area in that a protocol that touches the core of the
network, that we do want to see implementation/interoperability reports
at the PS stage as opposed to at the DS stage.

This report is to be prepared by the WG (chairs). And it needs to be sent
to iesg-secretary who will put it online on the IETF webpages, so that
during IETF Last Call people can actually look at the reports.

Please also not that some people worred (back at SLC meeting) that this
might delay the docs too much. I would like to remind you that it is now
2.5 months later, and I have still not seen any signs of such a report.
So don't blame the process if things get delayed because of a report not
showing up.... In other words... it might be good if people start to
report implementation and interoperability test reults.

> One note: the SDH/SONET label issue must be put to rest before the 
> SDH/SONET draft can move forward.  All other issues are now closed.
> 
So... this means that WG Last Call is NOT finished on that one document.
And I assume you want to process the whole set of 4 documents from above
as one set. Is that a correct assumption?

There is also the one informational document that got split off in from
this set. Is that ready and does it have WG consensus to be published
as Informational RFC? Will you pass that along with the set above too?


Bert