RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt
"Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com> Mon, 23 December 2002 19:00 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12719 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:00:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBNJ46H30022 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:04:06 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBNJ45v30019 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:04:05 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12687 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:00:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBNJ0Uv29932; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:00:30 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBNIxBv29869 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:59:11 -0500
Received: from peacock.tci.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12556 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 13:55:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mms02-RelayB.tci.com (mms02-relayb.broadband.att.com [147.191.89.213]) by peacock.tci.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gBNIw1CH007030; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:58:01 -0700 (MST)
Received: from 147.191.90.10 by mms02-RelayB.tci.com with ESMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.0)); Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:57:54 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: 43374831-6ABA-4273-9165-009ABBFC7FBB
Received: by entexchimc03.broadband.att.com with Internet Mail Service ( 5.5.2653.19) id <ZDJ1Q0JT>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:57:04 -0700
Message-ID: <6732623D2548D61193C90002A5C88DCC01EBD016@entmaexch02.broadband.att.com>
From: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
To: 'Thomas Narten' <narten@us.ibm.com>
cc: 'Paul Duffy' <paduffy@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 11:57:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-WSS-ID: 12198338215288-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thomas, (Reminder: this discussion is about defining future CCC sub-options, e.g. about the IANA Considerations for draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt) The 30-day clock on the CableLabs change control process can be reset for major changes, so everything at CableLabs does not have to be decided in 30 days. It would not have been realistic for all the changes embodied in draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt to be approved in one CableLabs 30-day review cycle, which is why I stated: > The ECx timeframe doesn't sound realistic in an IETF setting, and in > fact might be a non-goal. It might be more realistic for the (theoretical) definition of an additional CCC sub-option to be approved by CableLabs in 30 days -- especially if the sub-option were an obvious solution, a "no-brainer" if you will. That was the real concern from my email. But let's talk about the real CableLabs milestones, which revolve around product certification waves. Here are two sources for such information: <http://www.cablemodem.com/downloads/2003_Certification_Schedule.pdf> <http://www.ipcdn.org/milestones.html> -- please focus on the Certification Wave dates here Note that the ECR (Engineering Change Request) cut-off date from the second link above is 30 days before the ECN (Engineering Change Notice) acceptance date from the first link above. This is the effect of the CableLabs change control process 30-day clock. The ECR is written at the beginning of the change control process, and the ECN is the output of the change control process. Once a cable-related internet-draft is IESG-approved and has IANA-assigned numbers (e.g. option and sub-option codes), then someone in the CableLabs community writes and submits an appropriate ECR, which would presumably be approved and issued as an ECN 30 days later. The base CableLabs specifications plus the ECNs form the requirements for CableLabs product certification. CableLabs will not certify equipment in a particular wave, unless it meets the requirements from the ECNs that apply to that wave. That's how cable vendors are motivated to implement requirements in their products -- and also why they are motivated to review ECRs within the 30-day window. As you can see from the CableLabs milestones, if a particular ECR/ECN deadline is missed, we suffer a 4-5 month delay on product implementation and deployment. That's why CableLabs would be concerned about timeliness in specification approvals. Hope this helps in our mutual understanding of approval processes. -- Rich -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 10:56 AM To: Woundy, Richard Cc: 'Paul Duffy'; dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt [snip] > The comparison would be to the CableLabs Change Control process > (e.g. ECR/ECO/ECN), in which a change request is typically reviewed > and approved by vendors and operators in a 30-day window. The > vendors are motivated to review such changes in a timely fashion > because it immediately impacts the requirements on products that > they produce. However, the CableLabs vendor/operator community often > does not have the same technical experience as the IETF audience. Are you really saying that the time from initial proposal until the time the spec is finalized is 30 days? I have a hard time believing that. What exactly is "change request" above, and what sorts of changes are allowed? It is one thing to make minor changes, like fixes. It is probably something very different to add something completely new. > The ECx timeframe doesn't sound realistic in an IETF setting, and in > fact might be a non-goal. It is critical that the timeline requirements of cablelabs be exported to the IETF and that the IETF understand what they are. One problem has been that there has been (and still continues to be) confusion about what the real deadlines are. *If* we had firm timelines to look at, we could make a realistic assessment of whether the IETF can do its part within that time frame. We (the WG) can then commit to meeting those needs. This is quite possible, so long as we have a clear understanding of the timelines and we *both* agree to execute on a *realistic* plan. [snip] _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Jean-Francois Mule
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Jean-Francois Mule
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-narten-iana-experimental-alloca… Thomas Narten