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.

> I gather you expect much rumbling at an attempt to remove FCFS?

Not really, but just the delay of publishing the new rev,
LC'ing in the WG, then LC'ing in the IETF, than bringing to
the telechat would be >=1m ...

>>   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?

> Yes.

> I don't exactly like it, but can probably be arm twisted into going
> along.

> PS, do you have a stuckee pegged do to this? Strike while the iron is
> hot and all...

Yes, we do. Will strike right now.
Thanks.

ALex