RE: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:48 PM
> To: Yakov Rekhter; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; iesg@ietf.org; 
> ietf@ietf.org; Stephen
> Trowbridge; David Charlap; Loa Andersson
> Subject: RE: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational 
> 
> 
> Yakov... good to see that you read all my postings ;-)
> 
> I think you are taking a few things out of context here.
> When I was speaking up in the TE-WG, I was speaking up 
> because I feel that the WGs under my responsibility would
> work MUCH better if we can motivate as many people as
> possible to actually read and comment on documents in the
> WG. And when new work needs to get done in an IETF WG,
> then I feel that we need to have many people to be willing
> to contribute (at least read and comment).
> 
> I feel that we would also want that when we do an IETF
> Last Call for work that originates in the IETF, that is
> when we do an IETF Last Call for a document that comes
> out of a WG. And in fact, for many IETF originated work
> (even out of WGs), very few IETF Last Calls do generate
> a lot of feedback. I will admit that in most cases, all of
> us on the IESG would want to have lots more comment, also
> positive comment in the form "I read it and it is good"
> or some of the other forms I posted to the TE-WG mailing 
> list.
> 
> When we need consensus from the IETF for code point 
> assignments in a IANA controlled registry, and when we
> need those for work that has been standardized (or is
> being standardized elsewhere), so in this case in OIF 
> and ITU-T, then I do not see that we really need to
> have a lot of positive feedback from the IETF community.
> In my view, what we are looking for is to find out if
> the other organisation (or person) is not violating
> the protocols such that it hurts or does harm.


JD:  Given that these documents don't go through a working
group last call, why is an absence of positive feedback a
an unnecessary (or bad) thing?  What is the mechanism to ensure
that a given document doesn't hurt or harm?


> 
> In fact, several of the things that the drafts under
> discussion request assignment for are things that most
> of us in the IETF decided we did not want to work on.
> ANd part of that was that many IETF-ers did not like
> the approach, part of it was that we felt it was not
> our competence or the area that we felt needed to be
> addressed. So we send those people away, and they
> found other places to do their work. 


JD:  Okay, I guess that's your story and you're sticking to it.  However,
that's not the impression I get from the Yokohama CCAMP minutes: 

"Minute takers were volunteered (Josh Broch and Eric Gray) 

Snipped...

Osama Aboul-Magd presented status on his draft on ASON extensions to CR-LDP.

He asked if the WG would accept this as a WG draft. 

Kireeti pointed out that there is a meta discussion on the issue of
progressing both CR-LDP and RSVP-TE in the MPLS working group tomorrow and
suggested that the discussion should be taken to the mailing list after that
has been addressed. 

Snipped...

Dimitri Papadimitriou discussed work on ASON extensions to RSVP-TE. He asked
if the WG believes this to be valuable work and should eventually be put
forward to the ITU. 

Kireeti talked about the need to work out the relationship with the ITU on
these issues. 

Choy asked why the work does nt include call/connection information. 

Kireeti said that the functional specification should first capture the
solution independent requirements. 

Stephen Trowbridge asked what further information the IETF requires. 

Dimitri and Kireeti answered the question in detail."


> 
> We still do not have to like it.
> But I do not see why we need to block code point assignments
> as long as their work does not harm/hurt our own use of
> the protocols in which they ask for code points.


JD:  There are still unanswered technical issues.


> 
> Hope this helps and explains.
> Bert 
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net]
> > Sent: vrijdag 24 januari 2003 16:36
> > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> > Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; iesg@ietf.org; 
> > ietf@ietf.org; Stephen
> > Trowbridge; David Charlap; Loa Andersson
> > Subject: Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational 
> > 
> > 
> > Bert,
> > 
> > [clipped...]
> > 
> > > Two points:
> > > - the extensions to LDP were found to be in space that requires
> > >   IETF Consensus, and so Scott and I asked for an IETF Last Call
> > >   on the document. That is an explicit OPEN process
> > 
> > Quoting from the e-mail you sent recently:
> > 
> >   If not enough people (and 10 is the absolute minumum, but 
> > having seen
> >   the attendence of TWEG sessions, I'd expect 25 or more) 
> can speak up
> >   to state one of:
> >   
> >    - I read it and I am positive, it is good stuff
> >    - I read it and I see no problems or objections
> >    - I read it but I cannot determine if it is bad, but I 
> can see that
> >      what has been discussed in the WG is indeed in the document
> >    - I read it and I have these nits/objections...
> >    - I did not read it cause this is not relevant to my xxx 
> > job/work/function
> >    - I did not read it cause I think this is nonsense 
> >   
> >   Then I get the feeling that we're just allowing a small group of
> >   people push their petty-project through the process. That 
> seems NOT
> >   good to me. We need serious WG participation in reading and 
> > commenting
> >   in one of these forums above, before we can declare that 
> we have WG
> >   consensus on a document to be presented to IESG for 
> approval as RFC
> >   (in whatever form).
> > 
> > Since (as you said) the extensions required IETF consensus, and
> > with the above in mind could you please share with the rest of
> > us the information on how many people spoke up about the draft
> > to state one of:
> > 
> >    - I read it and I am positive, it is good stuff
> >    - I read it and I see no problems or objections
> >    - I read it but I cannot determine if it is bad, but I 
> can see that
> >      what has been discussed in the WG is indeed in the document
> >    - I read it and I have these nits/objections...
> >    - I did not read it cause this is not relevant to my xxx 
> > job/work/function
> >    - I did not read it cause I think this is nonsense
> > 
> > Yakov.
> > 
> 
> 
>