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

"Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com> Tue, 16 October 2012 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=5636ee0160=lyong@ciena.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9070B21F8771 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.015
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.015 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9FtRseT1ZU4c for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:45:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com [67.231.144.234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED9A11F0424 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0000419 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with SMTP id q9GLegch017776; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:45:08 -0400
Received: from mdwexght01.ciena.com (LIN1-118-36-28.ciena.com [63.118.36.28]) by mx0a-00103a01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 181fnar0qm-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:45:07 -0400
Received: from MDWVEXCHHT01.ciena.com (10.4.156.175) by MDWEXGHT01.ciena.com (10.4.140.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:45:08 -0400
Received: from MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com ([::1]) by MDWVEXCHHT01.ciena.com ([10.4.156.175]) with mapi; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:45:08 -0400
From: "Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:44:59 -0400
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents
Thread-Index: Ac2rzhbN4fG5L8YmSPmXetjvbo7laAAF4NJQ
Message-ID: <A0B4FC0A5EFBD44585414760DB4FD274FFB4D3C4@MDWEXGMB02.ciena.com>
References: <506AFA9B.2000508@labn.net> <507DAA96.6070400@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <507DAA96.6070400@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-7.000.1014-19278.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--30.949400-8.000000-31
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.7.7855, 1.0.431, 0.0.0000 definitions=2012-10-16_06:2012-10-16, 2012-10-16, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=1 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1203120001 definitions=main-1210160273
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:45:09 -0000

Hi Lou,

I find the part about private reports very confusing.  If people have implemented an IETF WG draft, why do they keep it private?  Shouldn't it be a positive development to say that you have implemented a WG draft?

Keeping it private seems like it withholds information that would help people understand better how to use the drafts, or show more clearly that these drafts are usable.  Are these dataplane as well as control plane implementations?  In what kind of environment have these been successfully deployed?  Were these multi-vendor or single vendor deployments?

Cheers,

Lyndon



-----Original Message-----
From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:43 AM
To: CCAMP
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents


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
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp