Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:05:57 -0500

Loa,

I assume that the mpls and ccamp lists are the appropriate places for 
discussion of this draft.  I also included the pwe3 list, since this also 
affects the work in that WG.  I apologize for the crossposts to those of 
you on more than one of these lists (including myself).  Perhaps once the 
discussion has started, we can pick just one place to continue it.

My initial reaction on reading your draft was that I didn't see any 
discussion of the pwe3 WG, which as you know is specifying extensions to 
RFC 3036.  For the purposes of your draft, would pwe3 be classified as a 
"protocol specifying working group"?  And is it your intention that the 
current work in the pwe3 WG be approved by the "requirement evaluating 
working group" prior to its documents being published as RFCs?  Or would 
this be grandfathered in as already having been chartered by the IESG?

Thanks,
Andy

-------

At 2/14/2003 06:43 AM -0500, [email-masked] wrote:

>A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>directories.
>
>
>         Title           : MPLS and GMPLS Change Process
>         Author(s)       : L. Andersson
>         Filename        : draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
>         Pages           : 11
>         Date            : 2003-2-13
>
>This memo describes the process through which individuals, working
>groups and external standards bodies can influence the development of
>MPLS and GMPLS standards.  With respect to standardization, this
>process means that (G)MPLS extensions and changes can be done through
>the IETF only, the body that created the (G)MPLS technology.  The
>IETF will not publish a (G)MPLS technology extension RFC outside of
>the processes described here.
>
>A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
>
>To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to
>ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.
>
>Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
>"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
>type "cd internet-drafts" and then
>         "get draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt".
>
>A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
>http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
>or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>
>
>Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.
>
>Send a message to:
>         [email-masked].
>In the body type:
>         "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt".
>
>NOTE:   The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
>         MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
>         feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
>         command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
>         a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
>         exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
>         "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
>         up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
>         how to manipulate these messages.
>
>
>Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
>implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
>Internet-Draft.
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Content-ID:     <[email-masked]>
>
>ENCODING mime
>FILE /internet-drafts/draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
>
><ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:13:07 +0100

Andy,

when writing the draft we briefly discussed whether to mention pwe3 or not,
I gather that ther were different reasons for different people not to. 
The mpls
and ccamp wg-chairs and the SubIP ADs had discussed the process for some 
time,
on my part I did not want to delay publication by throwing this on the pwe3
chair just minutes before the prublication.

I also think that there is an issue that pwe3 is not squarely within what
we define as (G)MPLS technology, pwe3 is an end to end technology and that
is why it is in transport.

This could be splitting hairs by an axe, we took the decision to publish
to get the type of reaction you given us here. The draft is out there to be
discussed.

If the pwe3 were to take up those extensions to ldp today, we would ask for
problem description and requirments, on my part it is not my intention 
(and I
don't think of any of the other authors) to retro-engineer existing work to
fit the process.

You might have noticed that I gave Jerry Ash the same answer when he 
suggested
that the mpls should take up work on header compression over mpls. But 
since his
work is not accepted or rejected yet, give us as much of the information as
possible in the format we want to have in the change process. Though he has
a certain freedom here.

pwe3 in specifying extensions to ldp, would be a "protocol specifying 
working
group", but note that this does not automatically transmorgraphies it into a
(g)mpls technology working group.

If you suggest that the pwe3 wg should be included as one of the (g)mpls 
technology
working groups, then I suggest that you give us text to be  discussed and
if a consensus is reached included in the draft.

Personally I would like to hear the transport ADs and pwe3 wg chairs opinion
on this.

Strictly I don't think we can require that people follow the process until
the IESG has OKed it, but as a wg chair I can clearly have an opinion on how
and where work on protocols specified by the mpls wg are done and how the
mpls wg takes on new work.

To avoid cross-posts I suggest that we taken the discussion on the
draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt on the mpls list :). We will 
allocate
time in both the mpls and ccamp working group meetings in SF to discuss 
this.

/Loa

Andrew G. Malis wrote:

> discussion of this draft.  I also included the pwe3 list, since this 
> also affects the work in that WG.  I apologize for the crossposts to 
> those of you on more than one of these lists (including myself).  
> Perhaps once the discussion has started, we can pick just one place to 
> continue it.
>
> discussion of the pwe3 WG, which as you know is specifying extensions 
> to RFC 3036.  For the purposes of your draft, would pwe3 be classified 
> as a "protocol specifying working group"?  And is it your intention 
> that the current work in the pwe3 WG be approved by the "requirement 
> evaluating working group" prior to its documents being published as 
> RFCs?  Or would this be grandfathered in as already having been 
> chartered by the IESG?
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
> -------
>