Subject: [mpls-tp] MPLS-TP-Requirements Draft

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:20:46 +0100

Hi,

This draft has just navigated the IESG.

It resulted in a bunch of editorial changes that in my view make no 
technical changes to the document and will not require further evaluation by 
the WGs.

The required changes are listed at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/ballot/3145/ and you should feel free 
to quesiton me about them, their reasons, and their impact.

Because of the number of changes (and a slight reorganisation of the order 
of the sections) it will be easiest to spin a new revision of the document 
rather than ask the RFC Editor to make the changes. Ben has indicated that 
he hopes to be able to do this within a week. We would then proceed to the 
RFC Editor Queue for preparation and publication as an RFC.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:32:08 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:20 PM

> RFC Editor Queue for preparation and publication as an RFC.

Which makes me wonder when we will see
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-00.txt

A concern I had with the process draft was that it did not necessarily require
changes made after publication had been requested to require any further
consent from WG, ITU-T etc.  Rather, it would be up to the WG Chairs and
ADs to decide whether or not a change was normative enough to require
referral back for consent.

For myself, I am ok with this, I am well used to it in the IETF and know that
if I really had an issue, then I had processes available to me to take it
further.

But I did hope to see this agreed before it happened, having been surprised by
some of the topics that have caused vigorous discussion here, eg about
terminology, thinking that a WG chair might in turn be surprised by what this
list
considered a normative change.

No matter, it would still be good to see that process draft.

Tom Petch

> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:48:20 +0100

Hi Tom,

> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-process-00.txt

I think we are waiting for the Ediotr to come back from vacation.

> referral back for consent.

This is business as usual.

I worked with the editor to propose some text to cover this case...

|     Once this request for publication is sent (resulting from WG
|     and ITU-T approval of the text) there is no further scope for
|     the ITU-T to influence the development of the document.
|     After this point, the document will be handled as any other
|     IETF document with individual comments made during
|     IETF last call, and with IESG review following.

|     Note that if these later stages in the publication process
|     cause significant changes to the document, it may be fully
|     or partially returned to the working group, in which case
|     some form of WG last call with ITU-T consultation would
|     take place following the steps outlined above.

Malcolm described this as applying "good engineering judgment" about what 
constitutes a significant change.

> list considered a normative change.

Right. Which is why (for the TP Requirements draft) I opted for circulating 
the full set of changes for the short window between agreeing the changes 
and making the changes.

> No matter, it would still be good to see that process draft.

Agreed.

Cheers,
Adrian

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:12:34 +0200

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
To: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 1:48 PM

> constitutes a significant change.

That looks very good; I look forward to seeing the rest of the I-D.

Tom Petch