Re: Proposed IESG statement on draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-05.txt

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Harald,

  Haven't sent it yet, and just finished the conversation
  with the chairs--agreed that interference would be the right
  word. I'll add your tweak.

  Thanks.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

Friday, May 9, 2003, 5:06:09 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> yes, I'm behind on mail....

> if this is not yet sent, I'd like to add a tweak.

> --On tirsdag, mai 06, 2003 14:53:03 -0700 Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com> wrote:

>> Bert,
>>
>>>> > Is this document really one that falls under the
>>>> "interferes with WG?"
>>>>
>>>> It is.
>>>>
>>>> > I don't want to overuse this category to pushback on everything. My
>>>> > impression was more like no body thinks very much of this document,
>>>>
>>>> this too.
>>>>
>>> So I think both points should be made, no?
>>
>> How about this.
>>
>> The IESG has considered draft-srisuresh-ospf-te
> insert:

> and has consulted with the chairs of the OSPF and CCAMP WGs to determine 
> what effect publishing this draft would have on ongoing IETF activities.

>> . The subject of the
>> draft is within the charter of the OSPF WG that is completing its work
>> on OSPF traffic engineering extensions (draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic).
>> draft-srisuresh-ospf-te was discussed in and rejected by the OSPF WG.
>> Given the above, and the work items expected to be taken on by the
>> CCAMP WG (including inter-area traffic engineering), the IESG believes
>> that publishing draft-srisuresh-ospf-te as an RFC at this moment would
>> interfere with ongoing activities within these WGs. The IESG recommends
>> that the RFC Editor does not publish draft-srisuresh-ospf-te at this
>> moment.
>>
>> Alex

> If it's already sent, don't bother.