[Lsr] Re: Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group

[Vishnu Pavan Beeram <[e-mail]>]

Gunter,

Since I am a co-author of these drafts, I've recused myself from initiating
the adoption process. Oscar is currently on vacation (as are many folks in
Europe) and my understanding is that he will initiate the process once he
returns toward the end of this month.

Regards,
Pavan

On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 12:41 AM Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> +teas-chairs
>
> Hi Italo, Carlos & Vishnupavan,
>
> Can you help understand lsr-chairs and authors of
> draft-many-lsr-power-group when the TEAS WG plans to start an adoption call
> for the companion draft -
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-many-teas-power-steering/
>
> Many thanks,
> G/
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 17, 2026 9:34 PM
> *To:* Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* Tony Li <[e-mail]>; Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>;
> "“[e-mail]”" <[e-mail]>; Les Ginsberg <[e-mail]>;
> lsr-chairs <[e-mail]>; lsr <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group
>
>
> CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when clicking
> links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for additional
> information.
>
>
>
> Speaking as WG Co-chair:
>
> Gunter - given the amount of discussion the draft had generated, I don't
> see that there has been any undo delay in the adoption call.
>
> One thing you could follow up on is when the TEAS WG plans to start an
> adoption call for the companion draft -
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-many-teas-power-steering/
>
> I haven't seen it yet (although I get lots of Email).
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>
> > On Aug 17, 2026, at 4:41 AM, Gunter van de Velde (Nokia) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tony, All,
> >
> > Message received.
> > I observed that Chris requested a WG adoption call for
> draft-many-lsr-power-group few hours ago.
> >
> > I believe we should, as Chris proposed, give the normal route a chance.
> If that doesn’t work, we can unpack the situation together and converge on
> the next steps.
> >
> > G/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Tony Li <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Friday, August 14, 2026 8:12 PM
> > To: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>; "“[e-mail]”" <
> [e-mail]>
> > Cc: Les Ginsberg <[e-mail]>; lsr-chairs <[e-mail]>;
> lsr <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group
> >  CAUTION: This is an external email. Please be very careful when
> clicking links or opening attachments. See the URL nok.it/ext for
> additional information.
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> > We still seem stuck.  Could I get some AD help, please?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > On Aug 7, 2026, at 8:53 AM, Tony Li <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > It's now two weeks after the meeting.  Could the chairs please proceed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 2:30 PM Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Can we please pause this discussion until after the meeting? I don’t
> think anything helpful is going on here that benefits the document or the
> WG.
> >
> > No one is raising bars on whims and no one is end running.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris.
> >
> >
> > On Jul 20, 2026, at 22:47, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> >  Tony –
> >
> > I think Chris and I have expressed the same point.
> > I also think you seem to want to “pick a fight” – and I am not
> interested in that.
> >
> > I will call your attention to the following from RFC 7120. Although RFC
> 7120 is not directly applicable in this case, it is related and the concern
> expressed there seems very relevant to this case.
> >
> > From https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7120.html#section-5
> >
> > “There is a significant concern that the procedures in this document
> >
> >    could be used as an end-run on the IETF process to achieve code point
> >    allocation when an RFC will not be published.  For example, a WG or a
> >    WG chair might be pressured to obtain an early allocation for a
> >    protocol extension for a particular company or for another Standards
> >    Development Organization even though it might be predicted that an
> >    IETF LC or IESG Evaluation would reject the approach that is
> >    documented.”
> >
> > Les
> >
> >
> > From: Tony Li <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 1:05 PM
> > To: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[e-mail]>; lsr-chairs <
> [e-mail]>; lsr <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: Re: [Lsr] Re: Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group
> >
> > Chris, Les,
> >
> > I wrote that code points "do not require adoption".  That is accurate.
> A 'SHOULD' is not a 'MUST'.  You don't get to change it into one.  What I
> wrote originally was correct.
> >
> > I respect the 'SHOULD' and the work the experts do, but the fact of the
> matter is that we have code, and it is going to ship regardless of
> adoption.  At this point, I cannot stop it.
> >
> > So, this is really up to you.  You can allocate, or we can squat.
> Waiting is out of the question.  Your choice?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 9:56 PM Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Expert hat on: I do not believe Les is raising the bar. We (reg experts)
> have followed the SHOULD advice rather consistently. We have always pushed
> for WG adoption first. It’s why I mentioned the order, adoption and then
> allocate, during the presentation. Yes, SHOULD is not MUST, but it’s also
> not MAY. :)
> >
> > I think it’s worth giving the normal route a chance here before we look
> to the exceptional one.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris.
> >
> >
> > On Jul 20, 2026, at 20:12, Tony Li <[e-mail]> wrote:Les,
> >
> > What I wrote is correct.  Please read what you quoted.  That's a SHOULD,
> not a MUST.
> >
> > You don't get to raise the bar on a whim.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 6:36 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) - ginsberg at
> cisco.com<[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Tony –
> >
> > I don’t want to start an argument – just want to set the record straight.
> >
> >
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iana.org%2Fassignments%2Fisis-tlv-codepoints%2Fisis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml&data=05%7C02%7Cgunter.van_de_velde%40nokia.com%7Cf06d61d690364315423908defc968418%7C5d4717519675428d917b70f44f9630b0%7C0%7C0%7C639225920576642649%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=O8wTJ%2FkbPXwKL%2FUzwoNmoHT4wYC8qDL5iagbj8fCwB0%3D&reserved=0
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml>
> states:
> >
> > “Note
> > For IS-IS registries and value ranges maintained via the "Expert
> > Review" [RFC8126] registration procedure, guidance for IESG-designated
> > experts can be found in [RFC7370].”
> >
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7370.html#section-4 states:
> >
> > “2.  The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise
> >        from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group
> >        documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored
> >        documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.”
> >
> > So what you say below is not correct.
> >
> >    Les
> >
> > From: Tony Li <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 8:50 AM
> > To: lsr-chairs <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: lsr <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: [Lsr] Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to formally request that we start an adoption poll of
> draft-many-lsr-power-group.
> >
> > I would also like to formally request code point assignment for this
> document.  The relevant code points are all under "Expert Review" and do
> not require formal adoption before code point allocation.  We would greatly
> prefer not to squat on code point values if we do not have to.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tony
>
>
>