Subject: [PWE3] Responding to SG15 liaisons

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:30:03 +0100

All,

we have two new liaisons from SG15, one on p2mp and one on linear
protection. Scott has distributed these liaisons to PWE3 and CCAMP.

There has been a few mail threads discussing how to respond to the
liaisons (without even really getting down to the technical issues).

The dead line for both liaisons are June 1st.

As before we have Scott (in his role as MPLS liaison manager)
coordinating the activities needed to send responses. John should
be second in this work. I've also included Eric O on this mail
since he has a documented interest in at least the

What is need is something like this:

1. Make sure we have the right people involved for each liaison,
    e.g. the authors of the MPLS-TP P2MP Framework for the p2mp
    liaison, and the authors of RFC6378.

2. Go through the liaisons and decide what points we need to respond
    to. As much as possible break these points out and send one liaison
    per issue.
    Scott - needs to keep us updated about these points and we need to
    agree on them.

3. If we can say that the some of the points are questions for
    clarification or informative, we can send them right away without
    polling the wg's for consensus.

4. Identify what we need to have wg consensus for; and which wg's.

5. Set appropriate dead lines, but also make sure that we don't need
    to spend valuable cycles around IETF meetings.

6. As much as possible keep the responses to "Yes, we see your point,
    would be nice if you could put this into a draft!" or "This is not
    an issue, it is taken care of but the following wg document(s)!"
    "Please use the IETF process to progress these issues!"
    We don't want to set ourselves up to write other new drafts than
    those we are directly interested in, we have a limited number of
    cycles.

Workable? (Yes, you are supposed to respond!)

/Loa
-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
MPLS Expert                                 [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consult)        phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:34:02 +0100

Folks,

I intended to send this to the pwe3-chairs only, not the wg :(

But I don't think any real harm is done?

/Loa

--

---

From: Scott Mansfield <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:34:09 +0000

This works for me.  I have received some input from a few people on the LP response and I am currently consolidating the input.  Once I get the done, I will send it out to the lists.  I plan to have a draft ready for comment by Wednesday 13 Feb.  Then, I'm hoping for some comment and mailing list discussion to help capture all the open questions as well as address the questions from the ITU-T.  I have not seen any discussion of the p2mp liaison.

As Loa states the deadline is 1 June which is after Orlando, so if we want, we can have an editing discussion session during the Orlando meeting.  The SG15 Plenary meeting is the first two weeks of July, that is probably the reason for the timing of the deadline.

Regards,
-scott.

-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 6:30 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; John E Drake; Scott Mansfield; <[email-masked]>
Subject: Responding to SG15 liaisons

All,

we have two new liaisons from SG15, one on p2mp and one on linear protection. Scott has distributed these liaisons to PWE3 and CCAMP.

There has been a few mail threads discussing how to respond to the liaisons (without even really getting down to the technical issues).

As before we have Scott (in his role as MPLS liaison manager) coordinating the activities needed to send responses. John should be second in this work. I've also included Eric O on this mail since he has a documented interest in at least the

/Loa
--

---

From: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:26:16 +0000

Loa

This is fine with me.

Regards

Matthew

On 11/02/2013 13:34, "Scott Mansfield" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>This works for me.  I have received some input from a few people on the
>LP response and I am currently consolidating the input.  Once I get the
>done, I will send it out to the lists.  I plan to have a draft ready for
>comment by Wednesday 13 Feb.  Then, I'm hoping for some comment and
>mailing list discussion to help capture all the open questions as well as
>address the questions from the ITU-T.  I have not seen any discussion of
>the p2mp liaison.
>
>As Loa states the deadline is 1 June which is after Orlando, so if we
>want, we can have an editing discussion session during the Orlando
>meeting.  The SG15 Plenary meeting is the first two weeks of July, that
>is probably the reason for the timing of the deadline.
>
>Regards,
>-scott.
>
>To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]; John E Drake; Scott Mansfield; <[email-masked]>
>coordinating the activities needed to send responses. John should be
>second in this work. I've also included Eric O on this mail since he has
>a documented interest in at least the
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3