Subject: RE: Updated WG charter: protocol-specific work

From: "Paul Knight" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 13:04:10 -0400

Hi Alex,

RE: (from the updated WG charter)
"As a general rule, the WG will not create new protocols, but will provide 
functional requirements for extensions of the existing protocols that will 
be discussed in the protocol-specific WGs. The group will review proposed 
protocol extensions for L3VPNs before they are recommended to appropriate 
protocol-specific WGs."

This process needs to be more specific, or key items needed by the VPN
community could be delayed.  I hope the charter statement can reflect a bit
more of flavor of the previous discussion (mostly in PPVPN messages entitled
"Draft charter for L3VPN: protocol-specific work").

First, the charter should reflect that the L3VPN WG expects specific actions
to take place when coordination with a protocol-specific WG is required.
For example, perhaps "The WG chair, with support from the ADs, will
coordinate with the relevant protocol-specific WG chair to ensure that the
item is adopted as a work item in that WG, or that specific reasons for its
rejection are expressed."

************** (earlier discussion on this point)
Hamid> If I take the example of LDP extensions proposals in l2vpn space. 
> Should both MPLS and PPVPN WGs agree to the changes before accepting 
> the drafts? or should MPLS, PWE3, and PPVPN WGs all agree to the 
> changes [...]?

Alex> We [presumably ADs - PK] would sit down with WG chairs of PPVPN, MPLS,
and PWE3 and discuss the matter. [...]
***************** (end)

If it is too much to include this kind of text in the charter, then the
charter should at least refer to  a specific mechanism for coordinating with
other WGs.

In the earlier discussion, you (Alex) made the following proposal, which
seems fairly reasonable.  Can we formalize this?

********************** (Alex's proposal)
   Given that finally the extension specs have to live in the
   protocol-specific WGs, how about we use the following process
   (draft):

     1. VPN folks who believe that a given protocol extension
        is needed, come up with an individual draft describing
        the details.

     2. The draft is brought to the appropriate VPN WG. A discussion
        on the mailing list AND in the room is held on the subject of
        why this is needed and whether this is a good idea VPN-wise.
        If there is no agreement on this--the draft does not go
        any further. Otherwise:

     3. The draft is taken to the protocol-specific WG. The WG
        discusses if it is happy with it as a general approach, if
        so takes it as a WG item. Otherwise, the WG chairs summarize
        the discussion and send the summary to the VPN WG.

     4. If the draft is accepted by the protocol-specific WG,
        the appropriate VPN framework document is updated to describe
        it and refer to the doc.

     5. The WG chairs coordinate timing for the draft.
        When ready to go to IESG, the draft is LC'ed in both WGs.

****************(end)

Finally, I do think that "functional requirements" should be amended to read
"functional requirements and/or detailed protocol specifications," since
there is usually more clarity in the actual specifications than in the more
general functional requirements, and it should generally make it faster and
easier to arrive at a decision on the proposal.

Regards,
Paul

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:41:31 -0700

Hi Paul,

Friday, June 6, 2003, 10:04:10 AM, Paul Knight wrote:

[proposal to include description of WG coordination process
 in the charter]

> charter should at least refer to  a specific mechanism for coordinating with

I should admit that I don't believe that the WG charter is the right
place to document the coordination process. When the WGs are approved,
we (the ADs) will work with the WG chairs to ensure that this process
is followed.

[Alex's proposal]

> easier to arrive at a decision on the proposal.

I don't feel comfortable saying the this WG is supposed to work out
detailed protocol specification, as this is what protocol-specific WG
are responsible for. On the other hand, nobody will try to stop the
authors from showing to the VPN WGs the specific mechanisms they are
planning to take to the protocol WGs.

Alex