[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
agree...
I suggest the liaison process should be a separate document. And update this if it needs updating. For people outside of IETF or new to IETF, it is useful to have these process descriptions. And they are two different subjects (with common links).
For Steve, Eve, etc, I think there are two (at least) discussions on-going (1) the liaison process (which will have the "hooks" to this document and vice versa), and (2) the "what if scenario" (for non-USA, this is our new shuttle terminology): how this document relates to if an sdo (or individual) works outside this process (info rfcs). It would be good (considering the discussion level) to add some clarification text to the chng proc draft.
One option suggested by Kireeti "this is where the SDO can decide, as you point out, that it can do it on its own, but changes the name of the protocol so that innocent bystanders can tell the difference." The SDO protocol is not IETF (as this chng proc draft states) and not (G)MPLS. And as Kireeti suggested the assignments by IANA should distinguish. Another option, suggested by Steve, is that IETF should be a clearinghouse. And discussion is on-going on the interpretation of clearinghouse.
Steve, your email may be mis-interpreted, e.g.:
"A better approach would be for the IETF to PROMOTE the use of its
protocols for new applications, and, when another Standards Development
Organization wishes to apply (G)MPLS protocols to an application domain
outside of the scope of IETF, that IETF will (1) assist with the development
of any necessary extensions; and (2) to facilitate documentation of
such new applications and extensions in a central place (e.g., by
informational RFC, even for extensions that are developed outside of
IETF) and to insure that code points are assigned in a coherent manner
through IANA to avoid collisions where different extensions may use
the same code points to indicate different things."
I don't think you are requesting IETF to simply endorse another sdo's work without review (unless the interpretation of assist=review), and I am not so sure about the promotion either. In T1X1/ITU, just at this last meeting, many have voiced concern with new applications (suggested within the group) for GFP: PON, switched layer. The concern is on extending GFP beyond what it was designed. What if another forum decided to do switched GFP? And they liaisoned to ITU to incorporate the necessary extensions? Remember the difficulties we have with IEEE 10G WAN. It calls itself SDH, but it is not SDH (as we know SDH is more than just G.707). And it is already causing confusion among the innocent. And remember "SONET Lite". Here, in IETF, they have the same concern if the name GMPLS is used. GMPLS is more than just extensions.
Some possibilities: at minimum, if IANA assignment is requested by a sdo, the name should at least distinguish it as non-IETF. And in the scope clarify it is outside of the IETF process. Or change the rfc name "informational" as it can be mis-interpreted. In ITU rec'ds, we have appendices which are informational, but they are part of the "ITU process" i.e. reviewed/agreed.
Deborah
-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@pi.se]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:59 AM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Kireeti Kompella; Scott W Brim;
ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
Deborah,
I suggested earlier that we describe (short) in the draft how we will
handle liasions
comeing into the IETF with request for changes or requirments related to
the (g)mpls
protocols. It needs to be understood that the internal IETF process is
specified for
IDs, and in some way we need bridge that gap. IETF and its working
groups modifies IDs,
and I don't think it is good idea to start modifying liasions from other
SDOs.
That we define the liasion process so it becoes crips and clear, and if
when we are doing
find that it has an impact on the change process, we updte or
re-organize the the
documents at that time.
Would that work? I guess that the answer is - yes, but only as much
(little) as needed.
/Loa
Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS wrote:
>Maybe lets go back to my hopefully simple question, will the liaison process be included in this draft or not? I (thought) the answer was no. Maybe best to clarify. And not that it is not important, all the mail agrees it is important. Then we can work from this draft with comments, recognizing the liaison process will be separate, e.g. where the draft discusses other sdos, we can add text to clarify.
>
>One comment on all of this from an ITU/T1X1 history, it is difficult to say apriori how a liaison will be processed. We do not have such a process either. Several ways exist to respond:
>1. simple thank you for the information
>2. here's the answer/clarification based on current work
>3. for a quick answer, at the meeting, have a breakout group to address a proposal
>4. for new work, send a response saying we invite contributions to our future meetings to progress
> - if no contributions, not anything is done (yes we have done this too)
> - at the next meeting, send several proposals to the other group for their review
>
>I had understood this draft as including option 4. Other mails are raising the concern, as in the past, if no response to the other sdo, the other sdo can not determine the status of the work. That can be part of the liaison process.
>
>Let's first clarify, do we want this draft to include the liaison process or should we do it separate (in parallel?)?
>
>Deborah
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
>Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:47 AM
>To: Kireeti Kompella; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
>Cc: Scott W Brim; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET
>Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
>
>
>Inline
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
>>Sent: donderdag 27 februari 2003 10:09
>>To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
>>Cc: Scott W Brim; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET
>>Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
>>
>>
>>Hi Bert,
>>
>>On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>No of course NOT. Many Liasons will want an answer.
>>>So we need a process to follow up and to track if a timely
>>>response has been (or will be) send.
>>>
>>>
>>Is the IETF process for replying to liaison statements (and of
>>generating them) written down, say in some RFC? If so, could you
>>send me a pointer?
>>
>>
>>
>Unfortunately, I don't think the process for that has been defined.
>That is why I said that "we need a process..."
>We do not have it yet (I think... at least I do not know it either).
>I think we were all just hoping people would take responsibility and
>do the right things... but as we know that is how things fall through
>the cracks.
>
>
>
>>>But the Liasons communication between ITU and CCAMP/MPLS has not
>>>been going smoothly so far (even though we had good intentions).
>>>Responses have not gone out in time (or in some cases at all).
>>>
>>>
>>I'll take full responsibility for that.
>>
>>
>>
>W.r.t. CCAMP I will share some of the responsibility too. I should
>also have kept a better eye on it.
>
>Bert
>
>
>>Thanks,
>>Kireeti.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>