Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational

[Loa Andersson <[e-mail]>]

All,

Zhi-Wei is right this is procedural and intentionally so.

I do not criticize "ITU" or people that are active in the ITU for not
following the IETF procedures, especially since there is a big hole in
the procedural framework here.

The only one to blame for the lack in procedure are ourselves :(, but we
can't cry over spilled milk, but need to do something about it.

What I'm saying is that what happened here very acutely demonstrates
this need to document such a  procedure.

/Loa

Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi) wrote:
> Hi Loa,
> 
> See comments below...I guess none of these comments are technical, but more procedural...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:59 AM
> To: Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi)
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Scott Bradner (E-mail); '[e-mail]';
> '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam); Malcolm
> Betts (E-mail); Stephen Shew (E-mail); Lyndon Ong (E-mail); Alan McGuire
> (E-mail); Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)
> Subject: Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> taking a step back - I think we are discussing several issues in a mix
> that makes it very hard to sort this out.
> 
> 1. What other organizations may do to IETF (in this context (G)MPLS)
>     protocols
> 
>     This won't be sorted out in this thread - and the only opinion so far
>     is that it is a bad idea to let anyone else change or extend IETF
>     protocols.
> 
> <zhi>Last time I checked, the IETF didn't change the protocols, individuals did through contributions.  The extensions requested for Call/Connection control were submitted by an individual.  The fact the ITU weighed in requesting approval of the changes is a separate issue.</zhi>
> 
> 
>     This will require at statement from involved wg chairs and ADs and an
>     approval from the IESG. I will push for such a statement.
> 
> 2. Have the IETF protocols been changed
> 
>     This is is a matter of how "changed" is defined. Clearly the OIF
>     UNI signaling spec extends the LDP protocol, message and new TLV.
>     This is referenced by a normative reference in the three drafts
>     discussed here
> 
>        draft-lin-ccamp-gmpls-ason-rsvpte-04.txt
>        draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt
>        draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt
> 
>     I understand that the IESG wants to treat those as a packet, and that
>     the last call on the CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational in
>     fact is a last call on all three of them. Further this could be
>     construed to be seen as an "last call" on normative references -
>     after all normative references are considered to necessary for
>     implementing a spec.
> 
>     Also, the ITU work extends the IETF protocols, new objects, new TLVs
>     and new error codes, that is why the drafts were written - to make it
>     possible for IANA to approve the needed code points.
> 
>     In our normal use of terms change includes extends, but we should
>     probably make that clear.
> 
>     The consequence of approving the drafts will be that the extensions
>     by OIF and ITU will be approved by the IETF. I'm not sure that this
>     has been in the open.
> 
> <zhi>This has been presented at the last few IETF ccamp meetings. I don't know how else to make it more clear the intention.</zhi>
> 
> 
>     However, not having a change process that relates to these protocols
>     I'm not sure if the IESG can do anything else than approving that the
>     IANA allocate the code points.
> 
> 3. The quality of the drafts
> 
>     In my opinion (if I were to review them as a wg chair, but I'm not
>     sure that those criteria apply to informational documents) we have a
>     problem here.
> 
>     The draft-lin-ccamp-gmpls-ason-rsvpte-04.txt and the
>     draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt is an a shape such that I
>     would (reluctantly) request publishing.
> 
>     But the draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt is not, there is
>     a long series of points that needs to be updated. References, TLV
>     description, un-expanded acronyms, etc. Would have returned this to
>     the author for further work. Aside from that I have a couple of
>     technical issues.
> 
>     Now, if the IESG considers them to be a package, this would effect
>     all of them. I guess that it would be possible to weed the draft
>     after it has been approved, but it deviates from normal practice.
> 
> My belief is that we should try to separate these issues from each
> other.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Loa Andersson

Mobile          [phone]
Email           [e-mail]