Subject: [mpls] Pete Resnick's No Objection on charter-ietf-mpls-05-01: (with COMMENT)

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:13:30 -0700

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-mpls-05-01: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mpls/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

   "The responsibility includes..."

What an odd construction. Can better words be chosen?

-   Maintain existing MPLS requirements, mechanisms, and protocols,
    in coordination with other working groups, e.g. CCAMP, PWE3
    and OPSAWG working groups.

I'm not sure what work item(s) you're talking about here. Is the WG
updating existing requirements documents and/or protocol documents in
response to new requirements from CCAMP, PWE3, and OPSAWG? Not clear from
what's said what is being referred to.

-   Evolve key MPLS protocols, including LDP, tLDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE
    and LSP Ping to meet new requirements.

Same question as above. "Evolve" is an odd word to choose, and I'm
curious if the list of protocols is exhaustive. Please clarify.

-   Determine MPLS-specific aspects of traffic engineering for
    multi-areas/multi-AS in cooperation with the CCAMP WG

Is there a reason this bullet changed from the previous version? It seems
to have removed the "and document it" part.

I'm not going to block this rechartering, but I would like to hear why
the charter became (apparently) more mushy than it had been.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:34:40 +0100

Hi Pete,

> What an odd construction. Can better words be chosen?

I will make it "The responsibilities of this working group include..."
Although since the previous paragraph says "The MPLS working group is responsible..." I would say it is PDO.

> response to new requirements from CCAMP, PWE3, and OPSAWG? Not clear
> from what's said what is being referred to.

We discussed in jabber.
The coordination is because many of the protocols and procedures span WGs, and because the requirements often come from other WGs.
I will add "work in overlapping areas"
I will add that the things what is maintained is in RFCs.

> curious if the list of protocols is exhaustive. Please clarify.

"Evolve" is a warm and furry word. We should cherish it.
The list of protocols is nearly exhaustive, but we got exhausted trying to list them all.

> to have removed the "and document it" part.

The previous version read...

| The first generation of the MPLS standards are largely complete, 
| and the current WG work items are: 
[snip]
| - MPLS-specific aspects of traffic engineering for multi-areas/multi-AS 
| in cooperation with the CCAMP WG 

I think it now says a little more, not less.

> the charter became (apparently) more mushy than it had been.

Ciao,
Adrian