Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and call for sheperd

Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es> Wed, 20 May 2015 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A488E1A88C2 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2015 10:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xaY2V6pfvXBn for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2015 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from villa.puc.rediris.es (villa.puc.rediris.es [IPv6:2001:720:418:ca00::7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ED721A890B for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2015 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [84.88.62.208] (helo=leo) by villa.puc.rediris.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>) id 1Yv7SF-00056J-NE; Wed, 20 May 2015 19:06:53 +0200
Received: from [192.168.1.200] (81.61.180.55.dyn.user.ono.com [81.61.180.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by leo (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5753E1FEA7; Wed, 20 May 2015 19:06:47 +0200 (CEST)
X-Envelope-From: ramon.casellas@cttc.es
Message-ID: <555CBF29.3070305@cttc.es>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 19:06:49 +0200
From: Ramon Casellas <ramon.casellas@cttc.es>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Matt Hartley (mhartley)" <mhartley@cisco.com>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>
References: <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48128F2479@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <55564F37.7010203@labn.net> <5559A180.8090504@cttc.es> <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC29CA28E0@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <9D50FCE7413E3D4EA5E42331115FB5BC29CA28E0@xmb-rcd-x03.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080100010700040301060804"
X-Spamina-Bogosity: Unsure
X-Spamina-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--)
X-Spamina-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-2.9 points) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0090] 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/EnNsOhVLMNuRWZOkGQ3NDs7canE>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-03 and call for sheperd
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:06:59 -0000

Dear Matt,

Please see inline

El 20/05/2015 a las 17:07, Matt Hartley (mhartley) escribió:
>
> Ramon,
>
> Is this doc informational or standards-track? It claims to be 
> informational, but it has RFC 2119 language in it.
It is a good question, which has been popping frequently during the 
lifetime of the draft. The last indication I received (internally) was 
that it should be informational, and I changed it. I guess the problem 
is that as a fwk document is mainly informational, but at some point in 
the distant past, it was decided to include also control plane 
requirements (I guess those are the sections that use RFC 2119 
language). Maybe wiser people can comment on this, but it was my 
(admittedly limited) understanding that those are non-exclusive (i.e., 
RFCs may be informational but yet define requirements and use RFC2119 
language to indicate requirement levels, adding the appropriate 
boilerplate).


Also, it’s missing the standard boilerplate for this stuff:

Uhm, afaik, it is not (I just checked both in -03 and -04 and the 
boilerplate is there $2.1). The change standards track -> informational 
happened in -04.

In any case, no objection either way. I will proceed with whatever 
option is more appropriate


> Also: you currently have six main authors, and my understanding is 
> that the RFC Editor’s guidelines are that there should be no more than 
> five….
>
Thanks for pointing this out, we were told of this not so long ago,...
I would like to ask whether five is a rigid limit and whether exceptions 
may be granted (consider this a not-so-subtle request for exception...), 
given that this draft was the result of merging several drafts -- which 
explains the amazingly long list of contributors -- and authorship was a 
quite hard thing to agree on. OTOH I guess that if this policy really 
needs to be enforced, we will have to find a way (hopefully not 
involving dice)

Thanks for your feedback
Ramon