Re: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

We'd like to thank all who have provided input on this topic, both on
list and privately.

We believe we have received sufficient input for these documents to
continue towards publication on the standards track.

The primary foundation for our position is the multiple implementations
that have been reported privately.  While we certainly would have
preferred to see these implementations reported on the WG list, we
respect the sensitivity of such information.

The next step for these documents is the completion of the technical
work, notably the expected revision of the signaling draft. Once this
update is discussed, we expect to move to last call of the WSON
documents as a group.

Thank you,
Lou and Deborah

On 10/2/2012 10:30 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> CCAMP,
> 
> The WG has several WSON-related drafts including:
>    1. draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
>    2. draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te
>    3. draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
>    4. draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf 	
>    5. draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling
> 
> These drafts are currently identified as being on the Standards
> Track.  The WG typically requests Standards Track publication of
> documents that fill/fix a clear protocol function and/or have
> strong WG support. Given the scope of this work as well as the
> time the drafts have been active in the WG, we'd like to solicit
> the WG's input on the publication track to be requested.
> 
> Once the WG reaches consensus on these drafts (as indicated by a
> *future* WG last call), Standards Track publication can be
> requested or these drafts could also be published via a
> non-Standards Track, see section 4.2 of RFC2026 for all options.
> 
> Please let us know (preferably by responding on the WG list) if you:
> 
> a. Support targeting all of these documents for Standards Track
>    publication?
>   [yes/no]
> 
> b. If no, support targeting some of these documents for Standards
>    Track publication?
>   [1, yes/no
>    2, yes/no
>    3, yes/no
>    4, yes/no
>    5, yes/no]
> 
> c. If no to any of the above, which status do you think appropriate?
>   [Experimental or Informational]
> 
> d. Finally, we are most interested in hearing from anyone who has,
>    or is planning an implementation based on the WG drafts.  We
>    understand that some may not want this information published,
>    so please let any of the chairs and/or ADs know (Lou,
>    Deborah, Adrian or Stewart), and they will publish the
>    information without any personal or company identification.
> 
> Keep in mind that this mail is *not* starting a WG last call on
> any of the documents identified above.  We'd like input on
> intended publication status prior to any last call discussion.
> 
> Lou and Deborah
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
>