Re: [manet] Call for acceptance as Working Group documents

[Rick Taylor <[e-mail]>]

Stan, All,

I seem to remember there was some discussion over whether the documents
should be accepted as WG documents in their current form, or the
contained concepts reformulated into different documents for the WG.
 Where/how that happens is the chairs/authors call.

There was discussion in Seoul about:

A) Producing a base document to define 'sub-TLVs' in DLEP for the use
by extensions. (Used by #2 and #4)

B) Writing a draft describing the use of Flows in DLEP, whether
DiffServ or otherwise differentiated, in a general sense, referring to
the sub-TLVs document.

C) Perhaps merging some of the good ideas from the #5 and the existing
credit-windowing extension into a single draft, addressing perceived
issues in both.

D) Extending #1 to cover all the relevant metrics in core DLEP.

I have already offered to collaborate on A and B.  So I vote for #1,
#2, #3 to be accepted, and #5 merged.

Contentious maybe...

Rick


On Mon, 2016-11-28 at 10:44 -0500, Stan Ratliff wrote:
> David, 
> 
> Oops. I claim Monday morning fogginess after the long holiday
> weekend, and being insufficiently caffeinated, as my excuse! ;-) 
> 
> WG, 
> My apologies for the duplication. There are but 4 extensions, but the
> question to the WG is the same: To adopt, or not to adopt? 
> 
> Regards,
> Stan
> 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Wiggins, David - 0665 - MITLL <Davi
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Stan,
> > 
> > I think #1 and #4 are the same thing, aren't they?
> > 
> > David
> > 
> > From: manet <[e-mail]> on behalf of Stan Ratliff <rat
> > [e-mail]>
> > Date: Monday, November 28, 2016 at 10:26 AM
> > To: MANET IETF <[e-mail]>
> > Subject: [manet] Call for acceptance as Working Group documents
> > 
> > Hello working group participants,
> > 
> > One of the items identified during the WG meeting in Seoul was to
> > formally request, via the list, Working Group adoption of 5
> > extension drafts related to DLEP. This email is that formal
> > request. 
> > 
> > The drafts are: 
> > 1. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-latency-exten
> > sion-00.html
> > 2. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-pause-extensi
> > on-00
> > 3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-multi-hop-ext
> > ension-00
> > 4. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-latency-exten
> > sion-00
> > 5. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cheng-manet-dlep-da-credit-ext
> > ension-00
> > 
> > I have put all 5 extensions on this email for expediency only;
> > please do not assume that they must be adopted as a group. The
> > chairs would greatly appreciate thoughts from the WG, both positive
> > and negative, by December 12. 
> > 
> > For purposes of determining WG consensus, a lack of a response will
> > be seen as indicating support for adopting the draft (e.g. silence
> > == acceptance). 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Stan
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet