[clue] Need authors action - finish the signaling and protocol documents

"Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com> Thu, 07 February 2019 06:17 UTC

Return-Path: <roni.even@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: clue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116701310F3; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 22:17:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3LSyqgTEedhH; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 22:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06C7E130FB8; Wed, 6 Feb 2019 22:17:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2BACB2403CDD7EC34993; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:17:38 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEMM421-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:17:37 +0000
Received: from DGGEMM526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by dggemm421-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 14:17:32 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <roni.even@huawei.com>
To: "draft-ietf-clue-protocol.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-clue-protocol.all@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-clue-signaling.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-clue-signaling.all@ietf.org>
CC: "clue@ietf.org" <clue@ietf.org>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Thread-Topic: Need authors action - finish the signaling and protocol documents
Thread-Index: AdS+rE5bVE9ftC9dSM+OiXVt2W/CPA==
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 06:17:32 +0000
Message-ID: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD18CB3090@dggemm526-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/clue/lqCLQNlb0XWWJ9GAseVGJU4yP6E>
Subject: [clue] Need authors action - finish the signaling and protocol documents
X-BeenThere: clue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: CLUE - ControLling mUltiple streams for TElepresence <clue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/clue/>
List-Post: <mailto:clue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue>, <mailto:clue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 06:17:42 -0000

Based on the feedback from the WG it look OK to have the protocol document as experimental RFC.

Can the authors of these two documents address the IESG comments so that we can finish the work.

For the signaling please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-clue-signaling/ballot/

For the protocol https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-clue-protocol/ballot/ 

Roni Even 
CLUE WG co-chair

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Roach [mailto:adam@nostrum.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2019 1:14 AM
To: draft-ietf-clue-protocol.all@ietf.org; draft-ietf-clue-signaling.all@ietf.org
Subject: CLUE: Need author action, input

CLUE document authors (cc chairs, shepherds, and ADs) --

The IESG review of the core CLUE documents last November resulted in significant comments, including a number of blocking ("DISCUSS") comments. Publication of these documents cannot proceed until the blocking comments have been addressed (and it is my personal policy that I expect each non-blocking comment to at least receive a response from the authors acknowledging the comment and indicating whether any changes to the document will result).

We did have a short discussion [1] on the CLUE mailing list regarding whether it would be feasible to publish the core CLUE documents as Experimental. I read Stephen and Christer's input as indicating that doing so would cause issues with external organizations. On the other hand, if we never publish the CLUE documents, then they remain equally unavailable to those organizations along with the rest of the world.

So I have an important decision to make: do we move forward in trying to address the DISCUSS comments on the protocol document? Or do we move to Experimental and make CLUE unavailable to ITU-T and 3GPP?

The key to answering this question is whether the authors have the time available to address the more complicated DISCUSS points raised on the protocol document. If so, we can push forward towards fixing the documents and getting them out the door. If not, we should go for experimental and let ITU-T and 3GPP deal with the fallout in whatever way makes most sense for them. (Regardless of which path we choose, the remaining IESG comments need action.)

Authors: what level of commitment can you make to completing these documents?


[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/clue/1o3-x4T_J9lZGp50Z4rOIpmsE60