summery of last call comments on crldp-ason

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

Turrns out that there were not all that many last-call comments on
draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt
here is a summary and a recomendation for action

------------------------------------------------
1/ Jerry Ash complained that the ID ignored
   draft-iwata-mpls-crank-back-04.txt
   Osama response: its not a RFC so could not reference it
   Jerry seems to think that crankack will become an IETF task and
   Osama's doc deals with it which would be a conflict

2/ a go-around over a misunderstanding of the state of the ITU documents
   some people thought the docs were still in discussion in the ITU
   actual state is that the discussion if done and they are up for
   formal OK (for which they need the IANA assignments) 

3/ Loa wanted a note to be added to say that CR-LDP will not
   proceed past PS

4/ Jerry Ash thinks that the ITU docs compete with IETF work
   gets support from John Drake 

5/ Kireeti thinks doc needs to add more details on
   the messages, especially their processing. Also, more detail
   on what the goal is here, under what circumstances
   these messages need to be sent/replied to, etc.

6/ John Drake brought up the suggestion that we may also need to
   have IETF Consensus on draft-lin-ccamp-gmpls-ason-rsvpte-04.txt.
   Although not brought up on the mailing list, a similar issue
   could be raised for draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-03.txt


recommendations:
#1 - no change recommended
     we have decided to not add more to CR-LDP from now on,
     so it seems unlikely that we'll do cranckback with CR-LDP

#2 - no change needed, confusion cleared up

#3 - no change recommended
     If we added a note to this doc then are we going to do so with 
     all CR-LDP docs in the pipeline? The one doc that makes that 
     statement is good enuf. If we ever change our mind, then we would 
     have to change all documents to which we add these types of 
     statements. Not worth the confusion.

#4 - since crankback has not received much IETF support I doubt it
     will get on some IETF WG charter - so no real issue
     Also, the document is CR-LDP and certainly there we do not 
     expect to add new things in IETF.

#5 - no change. We believe such is document in ITU docs, or at
     least should be.

#6 - no change
   - for draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-03.txt, we believe
     that this document was more or less implicitly Last Called,
     since draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt document
     clearly shows (sect 3.1 and 3.2) that it includes TLVs as
     specified in draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-03.txt
   - for draft-lin-ccamp-gmpls-ason-rsvpte-04.txt we believe that
     no IETF Consensus is needed.
     First, we already approved this document early December.
     Second of all there seem to be no formally approved
     rules/guidelines (IANA considerations) but only a sort of
     an expired draft (claimed to have RSVP WG consensus by Bob
     Braden) at web site
          http://www.isi.edu/rsvp/DOCUMENTS/IANAconsider.txt
     which seems to be not well known.
     Third, most assignments are in FCFS space. A few are not
     but given that quite a few RSVP experts have looked at it,
     we do not see that an IETF Last Call would add new viewpoints.
     We could also suggest that ITU could chosee to wait for us to
     do a last call or to accept changing a few assignments to FCFS
     space.
           
Based on that we propose to approve   
   draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt (this rev is being 
       submitted as we speak, it has some clarifications requested
       by IANA while we were working out the detailed assignments)
   draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt    
Both as informational RFCs.

We also recommend to keep draft-lin-ccamp-gmpls-ason-rsvpte-04.txt
in the RFC-Editor queue as approved for Informational.

Last, we propose that IESG-secretary sends out an email (right
after the telechat on Thursday) to the IANA to make the assignments
as worked out by Michelle and Bert and then to make sure ITU-t SG15
gets an email that points them to the final assignments. This email
to be sent to Steve Trowbridge, jtrowbridge@lucent.com, if possible
on Thursday, but at the latest on Friday (Jan 24th).

Scott & Bert