Subject: RE: Review Call: draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-00.txt

From: "Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:45:03 -0600

Alex, All,

There was a very long thread in CCAMP on this I-D almost 2 years ago,
starts at:
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2003/msg00072.html.  I posted a
few messages and made comments/suggestions then, however, I don't think
the comments were ever resolved/incorporated.  

In essence, the suggestions I made were as follows:

1. In Section 3.2.2 "The MPLS and CCAMP working group chairs in
conjunction with the Area Directors will determine if the particular
problems raised ... should be evaluated by a working group... based on
the mailing list discussion."

Nothing is said as to criteria applied to the 'mailing list discussion'
(could be dominated by one loud person with a particular view), or how
the 'rewg will evaluate the problem statement'.  The decision process
appears to remain the status quo, i.e., 'rough consensus', which is not
particularly well defined and where sometimes a small group of key
people appear to 'decide' (especially problematic in 'no response'
decision).

Additional teeth could put in place to give a more comprehensive
review/decision process to overcome these identified problems, e.g., for
certain categories of problem statements/requirements, put a 'design
team' in place to evaluate/recommend a course of action.

Since the decision steps are quite vague, it would help to specify
criteria applied to the 'mailing list discussion' and how the 'rewg will
evaluate the problem statement'.  It seems that most any conclusion can
be reached with the process specified in the I-D.

2. In Section 3.2.4 "The rewg will evaluate the problem statement ID and
based on the evaluation make a recommendation to the IESG/IAB."

As a possible alternative/additional step in the decision process, put a
'design team' in place to evaluate/recommend a course of action, in some
cases where it might help the rewg.

Thanks,
Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alex Zinin
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 7:29 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Review Call: draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-00.txt

Folks-

 We'd like to solicit your comments on this document before
Last-Call'ing it.
 Please send your comments to the routing-discussion mailing list.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-00.
txt
 
                     MPLS and GMPLS Change Process
               draft-andersson-rtg-gmpls-change-00.txt
Abstract

   The MPLS and GMPLS protocol suites have become quite popular for a
   growing number of applications and deployment scenarios.  One result
   of this popularity is a large number of suggestions for modifications
   and extensions.

   The IETF needs to be flexible and responsive in how it handles these
   suggestions, and has a responsiblity to supervise the growth and
   evolution of MPLS and GMPLS protocols.

   This memo describes the process through which individuals, working
   groups and external standards bodies can influence the development of
   the MPLS and GMPLS standards.  This process means that extensions and
   changes to protocols specified by these working groups can only be
   made through the IETF, the body that created the (G)MPLS
   ((Generalized) Multiprotocol Label Switching) technologies.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion