Re: draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-09.txt

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Thomas,

  Sorry for not being clear. Here's what it is:

  1. After the document has been LC'ed, authors, WG chairs,
     and ADs realized that we can have the same problem as
     with RSVP because of the FCFS range

  2. Changing the IANA considerations section in the document
     would need to be approved by the WG, which means another
     WG LC and another IETF LC. This would mean another rev
     and at least another month of delay.

  3. Given that the document has been widely implemented and
     deployed, and should have been published long time ago,
     we did not want to delay it even more.

  4. However, we do want to solve the FCFS problem. The agreement
     between ADs, WG chairs, and authors, was to ship the document
     as is, and then submit another draft that just updates the
     IANA section of draft-katz-yeung and removes FCFS.

  Does it make more sense now?

-- 
Alex

Wednesday, April 2, 2003, 10:20:23 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>>   We knew about this issue when the draft was coming out of the WG,
>>   but didn't want to delay it more after way too many years in the
>>   process--changing the IANA section would need another WG and IETF
>>   LCs. The agreement was to quickly come up with a short document
>>   updating just the IANA considerations section in this one. Would
>>   this be fine?

> I don't quite parse what you are saying.

> To clarify, "the agreement" refers to which parties? The RTG ADs and
> WG?

> Also, it seems to be the IANA considerations doesn't quite make
> sense. Are you saying you know that but want to ship it anyway and
> that is not changable?

> Note: bad IANA considerations have a way of biting us in the rear
> later through vendor extensions.

> Thomas