Subject: [Teas] status of draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:44:22 -0500

All,
   Based on yesterday's interim as well as input we have received, both on and off list, we have concluded that there is interest in ensuring that a particular problem is documented and that there may be multiple possible solutions to this problem.  We also conclude that there is not support for new Standards Track mechanisms *at this time*.  We'd like to propose the following:

1) The -03 rev of the draft serve as the foundation for the next rev, as the -04 version doesn't represent any WG consensus.  And that this rev have 'Experimental' listed as its intended status.

For those who really want a PS, we'd like to remind you that the WG can revisit this at a later time, even after publication.  See rfc5467 as an example of work that went through a similar evolution and then was eventually replaced by a PS in rfc6387.

2) That the WG* agree on a brief (say 1-2 page) description of the problem to be solved.

This should be discussed on list and eventually captured in a draft of the Author's choosing - which may or may not be an existing one. Adding information on any real-world experience would be very useful.

* - WG includes authors+anyone else who wishes to contribute, e.g., Adrian has volunteered to help.

3) That draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection be updated with a brief summary of why existing RFC documented mechanisms don't address the problem.  Authors should lead this update, but all WG participants should feel free to contribute.

4) That draft-ietf-teas-rsvp-ingress-protection be updated with a brief summary of what other non-standard mechanisms have been considered as possible solutions and why they were rejected. Authors should lead this update, but all WG participants should feel free to contribute.

We believe these steps move us beyond the state represented by the -04 rev of this document and balances the various views that have been expressed.  These steps should not be viewed as representing any departure from future normal WG processing of this draft, including anticipated refinement, review and, when ready, LC.

Please feel free to discuss as you may see appropriate.  If your comment relates to this document's process, please respond to this message.  If your comment is technical, please start a new thread.

Thank you,
Pavan and Lou