Subject: Moving forward on VR draft

From: "Paul Knight" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 10:49:19 -0500

Hi Thomas,

Your note in the ID tracker
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi)
on the VR draft(s) is:

[Note]: '2004-08-25: draft-ietf-l3vpn-as-vr-01.txt &
draft-ietf-l3vpn-vpn-vr-02.txt go together. Need to better understand
what wording/changes are needed to make clear that these documents are
not a protocol spec from which one can achieve interoperability.
' added by Thomas Narten> [end Note]

As editor of draft-ietf-l3vpn-vpn-vr-02.txt, I had thought we had covered
this by moving the draft to an Informational track instead of Proposed
Standard.

I'll be happy to insert text in the Abstract and/or Introduction of each of
these drafts if it is needed to proceed.  (Working with editor of the
Applicability Statement (AS-VR) to update that one.)

Do you expect that it will be necessary to change the requirements language
(i.e. MUSTs, etc.) within the text of the drafts?

Both drafts were completed before the latest IPR statements were mandated.
Will the IPR statements need to be updated, and other boilerplate items?
I'd like to do all the changes at once to get this finished ASAP.

Regards,
Paul Knight
 
Standards Advisor, Nortel Networks 
Advanced Technology - Strategic Protocols & Standards
+1 978-288-6414

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 11:04:27 -0500

Hi Paul.

> this by moving the draft to an Informational track instead of Proposed

Here are some comments I sent just to the chairs a while back (note
that I have the same general issue for both VR and the IPsec CE
documents).:

Thomas Narten <[email-masked]> writes:

> I'm still not quite sure what to do with these. What concerns me (at a
> high level) is that the docs were put forth as PS documents, but after
> discussion, we just decided to make them info. But the documents have
> not been revised, so the text is still exactly the same.

> For the VR documents, I think it is important that it be made clear
> that they are not a protocol specification, because we won't get
> interoperability out of them. There are several ways to do that (some
> more work than others). E.g., does it make sense to use
> MUST/MAY/SHOULD language? I doubt it. Also, does one need an
> "applicability statement" for an architecture? Again, I'm not at all
> sure.

> One other possibility is to add some sort of big note (IESG note?
> applicability?) that clearly states that these documents are an
> architecture and are not a protocol specification, and thus, two
> implementations from the documents are unlikely to interoperate. Or
> something like that. But some folk might not like that, as it makes it
> even more clear that this is not a "spec". But this would be the least
> work, and I'm not sure that continuing to iterate on these is all that
> useful.

Also, I see there is:

draft-ietf-l3vpn-vr-mib-02.txt

What are the plans for this document? How much sense does it make to
have a MIB for an architecture? Is it complete enough to be useful
(I've not looked at this MIB in detail, so maybe the questions here is
a bit uninformed).

> (i.e. MUSTs, etc.) within the text of the drafts?

This is open for discussion, per above.

> I'd like to do all the changes at once to get this finished ASAP.

Yes, the new IPR text would be needed on a respin. But I assume this
is just an editorial change.

Thomas