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

Lou Berger <> Tue, 16 October 2012 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F0D11E80D5 for <>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.272
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.272 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.327, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UvKnl8OoAfIo for <>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 415911F0C80 for <>; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1051 invoked by uid 0); 16 Oct 2012 22:11:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 16 Oct 2012 22:11:26 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=4GwGyiq6HheZAUwGYE6kNyMAR93z+lTN03QttiIccQ0=; b=P2HPpFnK4Pc3AOFwH8YwfQd1cJRF5tADf1j3y6e7aghjExiU1ugfdaobipRqwe4CTrwXY98Jhal+UjWeli3hau5quLyHVIGkxoEna3oXim+3XngKOUWjXYrFcEJpsbYx;
Received: from ([]:48383 helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <>) id 1TOFME-0002eP-5F; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 16:11:26 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 18:11:22 -0400
From: Lou Berger <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ong, Lyndon" <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Cc: CCAMP <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:11:52 -0000

	As I stated in my mail, we also would have preferred public
disclosure. But, we certainly can't compel folks to disclose their
company information outside of IETF IPR rules, which does NOT cover
implementation status.  Anatomizing implementation status does have
precedent in the IETF, for example see

The purpose of the thread was to solicit input *to the WG chairs* on
if, we in our role as as document shepherds, could justify recommending
progressing the drafts according to the WG's position that these
documents be published on the standards track.  We believe we have
sufficient information to answer this question. The routing ADs and
IESG can of course challenge this position, as they have in the past.
We now know how to respond, i.e., there are multiple reported
implementations.  We didn't prior to this discussion.

WRT your other questions, we as a WG have not typically asked for
or obtained such information prior to submitting a publication request
to the IESG for Proposed Standard.  This is well established practice
for at least this WG.  I certainly would expected that we would need to
obtain such information for publication requests for documents with
more advanced standards track maturity levels.

I hope this addresses your questions.


On 10/16/2012 5:44 PM, Ong, Lyndon wrote:
> 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: [] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:43 AM
> 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:
>> 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 mailing list