Subject: [Tsvwg] Reviews of RSVP extensions (here, there, or ... ?)

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:54:42 -0600

Hey WG

In the DC meeting of TSVWG, a distinguished person questioned at the 
microphone whether or not TSVWG was the right place in which to do RSVP 
extension reviews within the IETF. There was some discussion on this topic 
during the meeting, with the first reaction from a few of us being "if not 
here, where?"

Someone (and to be clear, it was not me) from the audience offered the 
chairs the idea of opening up an RSVP WG for such extensions that have been 
steadily streaming in over the years into the Transport Area. That idea was 
forcefully put down by the table at the front of the room... perhaps 
rightfully so.

But one thing was clear (to me at least), there was no other proposal for 
where to take RSVP extension documents for review by enough RSVP heads that 
each proposal would receive proper scrutiny by experts (if they aren't 
already in the TSVWG).

So, I ask the list:

Where should documents that are intended to be standards track extensions 
of RSVP  be reviewed?

Discussion would be good now....

cheers,
James

                                *******************
                 Truth is not to be argued... it is to be presented

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

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:33:02 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

If you look at how the work in Mobile IP was divided into three WGs (mip4,
mip6, and mipshop), the same could happen here: move the existing RSVP
proposals from TSVWG to a short-lived WG that will take those individual
drafts and get them to RFCs quickly and efficiently, and close 
immediately after.

Cheers,
Jukka

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, James M. Polk wrote:

> Someone (and to be clear, it was not me) from the audience offered the chairs
> the idea of opening up an RSVP WG for such extensions that have been steadily
> streaming in over the years into the Transport Area. That idea was forcefully
> put down by the table at the front of the room... perhaps rightfully so.
> 
> each proposal would receive proper scrutiny by experts (if they aren't already
> in the TSVWG).
> 
> So, I ask the list:
> 
> Where should documents that are intended to be standards track extensions of
> RSVP  be reviewed?
>

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:28:13 -0800

> drafts and get them to RFCs quickly and efficiently, and close 

Hmmmm.  From your comments it sounds like the Mobile IP is a test case
for this idea.  How quick and efficient was the relevant mobile IP
working group?  I see that they're all still extant.

-- 
Ted Faber
http://www.isi.edu/~faber           PGP: http://www.isi.edu/~faber/pubkeys.asc
Unexpected attachment on this mail? See http://www.isi.edu/~faber/FAQ.html#SIG 
_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:45:15 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

Mobile IP had been going on for years and years, and there was way too 
many drafts to handle by one WG and its chairs. I don't know/remember all 
the details behing the split, but it has worked, as far as I can tell. The 
same thing could be done here: get the RSVP documents, and people 
interested in those, to a new WG that will quickly deal with them, and 
close - quick, clean, and simple.

My 2 cents,
Jukka

---

From: Ted Faber <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:16:59 -0800

> close - quick, clean, and simple.

My impression hasn't been that there's been a shortage of time to
present or discuss these drafts in TSVWG, but a low interest level.  I'm
not sure that a new group would address that.

That's an impression; I could be way off.