[CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 02 October 2012 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B54F21F84C5 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 07:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.016
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.016 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1S0s1ATI6qUa for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 07:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy6.bluehost.com [IPv6:2605:dc00:100:2::a6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B5A7121F847D for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 07:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 5481 invoked by uid 0); 2 Oct 2012 14:30:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) ( by cpoproxy3.bluehost.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2012 14:30:50 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=x5qyay0G0g3nFdfANgzAYvB1/4WxajJnYjwcoO9T+hI=; b=r6wDUmaGFTGESFRNt+rmr13mCb05ZPISNWsW9ntMHJr6jtVRMWKCdGACFlQbe5cZKj6n0xud7VAZZXMs5DZOGEA99Rz3s3hC3az/D0hLk5yh/GyvNhZbNZCjstL7Fzcx;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([]:43549 helo=[]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1TJ3Uo-0006x1-Js; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:30:50 -0600
Message-ID: <506AFA9B.2000508@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 10:30:51 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth authed with lberger@labn.net}
Subject: [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, 02 Oct 2012 14:31:12 -0000


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

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