REMINDER - ID summaries due soon

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

reminder - we need these summaries by next Friday - otherwise we will
assume that we do not need to worry about the ID

also - you need to be specific in where you think the ID fits - just saying
"fits in MPLS" is not enough - say where in the MPLS work

Scott & Bert

---------------------------------------------
All, but specifically I-D Authors/Editors

Over the last several months, we have seen A LOT of I-Ds submitted/posted
which appear to be targeted for one or more WGs in the new sub-IP area.
(ccamp, gsmp, ipo, iporpr, tewg, mpls and ppvpn) These are mostly
individual I-Ds, that is those that do not start with 
        draft-ietf-<someWgName>
but this mesage referrs to ALL I-Ds related to the Sub IP WGs.
In fact we believe we have some 200-300 of such documents.

It is sort of impossible to try and read them all and decide in which WG
(if any) they might fit. So in order to help us (WG chairs and ADs) to 
work our way through all these documents, we want the AUTHORS/EDITORS of 
such existing documents to do the following:

- Before May 18th, pls send ONE SINGLE email per I-D to the email alias
  
       idsummary@subip.ietf.org

  That email should be formatted and contain content as
  explained below.

  Pls DO NOT send these emails to any WG mailing list. 

  The idsummary mailing list will be archived publically at 

      ftp://subip.ietf.org/pub/lists/idsummary*

  Since these are non-WG documents (yet) any comments/discussion
  can/should take place at: 

      subip-area@subip.ietf.org

  But initially the idea is to just collect the data.

- When doing a revision of these documents or writing a new I-D,
  please pls add a section at the beginning of your document that contains
  the same information we are asking for here so that readers of your
  document can also see it.

All these emails will be archived and the WG chairs, ADs, Technical
Advisors
and Directorate will review them and report back (target is end of May)
what we want to do with each of the documents.

If we do not receive a note about an I-D we will assume that the I-D
authors/editors do not intend to publish it as a RFC.

Further, if you assume this pictorial overview of the work we are doing
in the sub-IP area, then pls indicate where in the picture your document
fits.

   --- pictorial overview of work in the sup-IP area --------------

  The Working Groups at the top are those that will use the
  Common Control and Measurement Protocols that we're 
  defining in the CCAMP WG.


  Applications         +-------+  +-------+        (new) Hour glass
  that use CCAMP: \    | TE-WG |  | PPVPN |  ...           /
                   \   +-------+  +-------+               /
                    \     +----------------------+       /
                     \    |         CCAMP        |      /
                      \   |-----------+----------|     /  
                      /   |   C       |    M   --|------ IGP LSA ext
                     /    | control   | measure  |     \  
                    /     +----------------------+      \
  Technologies to  / +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+  \
  measure/control:/  |MPLS| |OPT | |RPR | |ATM | | FR |...\
                     +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+

  The technologies at the bottom allow us to create paths and so those
  are the ones we want to measure and control via the Common Control
  and Measurement Protocols coming out of CCAMP. One of those 
  technologies (MPLS) is defined by IETF, others are (have been) defined 
  in other standards organisations. However, we want to focus mainly on 
  the use of such technologies for IP.

  So for example the IPO and IPORPR WGs are assumed to be active at 
  the bottom because we want to focus on the IP use of such technologies.


Bert and Scott
--------------------
The ONE SINGLE email per I-D should be as follows:

-  Subject: <targetWgName> <nameOfID>
   
   the targetWgName is the WG that you as authors/editors
   think that this document should live in. If you have no specific
   WG as the target WG, then use subIP as the name.

   the nameOfID is the filename of the draft, e.g. draft-xxx-yyy-zzz-00.txt

- In the body of the email must have the following sections with these 
  section titles:

NAME OF I-D:

  Write it down as a URL so we can click on it to see it.  e.g. 

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xxx-yyy-zzz-00.txt


SUMMARY

  This should contain a summary of the content of the document
  Potentially it can be the abstract. But pls make sure that it helps
  the reader undestand what the document is all about.
  PLEASE TRY TO KEEP IT DOWN TO TWO PARAGRAPHS

RELATED DOCUMENTS

  A list of URLs for other I-Ds (or non-IETF documents) that you think
relate,
  compete, complement or overlap with your document.  "none" if none

WHERE DOES IT FIT IN THE PICTURE OF THE SUB-IP WORK

  Applications         +-------+  +-------+        (new) Hour glass
  that use CCAMP: \    | TE-WG |  | PPVPN |  ...           /
                   \   +-------+  +-------+               /
                    \     +----------------------+       /
                     \    |         CCAMP        |      /
                      \   |-----------+----------|     /  
                      /   |   C       |    M   --|------ IGP LSA ext
                     /    | control   | measure  |     \  
                    /     +----------------------+      \
  Technologies to  / +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+  \
  measure/control:/  |MPLS| |OPT | |RPR | |ATM | | FR |...\
                     +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+


WHY IS IT TARGETED AT THIS WG

  You must explain how the ID addresses a workitem in the current WG
  charter as listed on the WG charter page on the IETF web site. If
  it addresses only part of a work item, then please explain if there
  are other documents that could be merged with this one to become one
  document to address the complete work item.

JUSTIFICATION

  Why do you think it is justified for the WG to consider this document.

  In the case that you cannot explain how this document addresses
  a specific WG charter work item, then explain and justify why the
  WG should even consider this work and what the description of 
  a possible new work item would be for the WG. Suggest possible
  milestones for that work item.

  Please realize, that new work items need wide support within a
  WG, but also they need agreement from the WG chairs and ADs,
  and even when they get that, the whole IESG and IAB must review and
  approve new-work items before they get added to a WG charter.

  Please understand that we already have a lot of work in our WG
  charters, and that we would rather see that finished (or at least
  be well undeway) before we undertake any new work items.