Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-forces-protocol-06.txt

From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 17:38:52 -0800

Greetings, 

Wish all the WG members a very Happy New Year!! 

I haven't seen much activity on the protocol draft after the last update
by Avri.
Should I set up a conference call to close on any issues that need to be
discussed?

Avri, could you send us a list of issues that you feel need to be
further discussed, that would be very helpful.

I am trying to figure out what's needed to take the draft to the next
stage for IESG review.

Thanks
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: Forwarding and Control Element Separation
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:19 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [FORCES] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-forces-protocol-06.txt

On 15 dec 2005, at 04.45, Wang,Weiming wrote:

>
> To better reflect the editing work of the draft in the issue  
> trackers, may I
> suggest short comments be made to the issues and even a closure be  
> made to some
> of them after your editing work?

yes, there are some comments in the doc.   I can go through the  
tracker and add some more comments, but i am not sure they would be  
more complete then the ones i put in the doc itself.  also i think  
the people who put in the items, and the chairs, should decide  
whether issues are closed or not - sort of a check and balance - who  
am i to decide that i closed something adequately as i might have a  
conflict of interest in making such a determination (i.e. the desire  
to be finished with an issue).

Note by using ietf wg tools, one can go to:

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/forces/draft-ietf-forces-protocol/draft-ietf- 
forces-protocol-06-from-05.diff.html

and see a side by side comparison of -05 and -06 to check out the  
changes.

a.

---

From: Weiming Wang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:56:14 +0800

----- Original Message -----
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-forces-protocol-06.txt

Greetings,

- That would be very helpful. Thanks, Hormuzd.

Weiming

---

From: Avri Doria <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 17:25:42 -0500

Hi,

> - That would be very helpful. Thanks, Hormuzd.

what issues need to be dealt with in a phone call?

My expectation was that those who had put in issues/change requests  
would decide whether more was still needed or if they had been  
addressed adequately.  and if they felt more was needed, would  
explicitly say what was needed.  so either people haven't reviewed  
-06 yet, or there are no issues ( i cannot believe this is the case -  
though it would make me happy)

I personally, have no issues i want to deal with, though i will do  
another clean up pass and try to get some more labels in on figures  
(was having trouble with the xml2rfc - sometimes it works and puts a  
label in based on title attribute in the figure element  and  
sometimes it doesn't.  and of course will fix anything the WG thinks  
need fixing.

i am still also interested in hearing from the developers who are  
using -06 to write code.  what are the ambiguities? what's missing?  
what still needs to be done for an interoperability (which i define  
as CE from X and FE from Y and maybe Z) .

thanks
a.

---

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:27:57 -0500

Olla,

Apologies for not participating for a while now ..
I am trying to go over the emails - I hope i dont miss any.

I reviewed the -06 draft and don't see any issues that are technical;
rather they are mostly editorial. Perhaps we should close all the issues
that have been addressed in -06? You can certainly close all the
ones opened by myself.

As far as interop: - I strongly believe we should _not_ make it a
gating issue for the protocol to move to the RFC queue. The rules call out
for implementations existing not necessarily inter-oping. I can tell you
inter-op at the moment is very low prio for us (that doesnt equate we wouldnt
be interested in a future interop, just that it is something we cant adequately
allocate resources to at the moment)

cheers,
jamal