Re: [mpls-tp] poll to adopt draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv as a working group document

[Yuji Tochio <[e-mail]>]

No / Do not support

The reason is as following:

In summary, this draft or the authers should carefully review
the draft [lsp-ping-bfd-procedures] (say "ping draft")which
gives a number of dependency to this draft (say "cv draft").
Prior to making cv draft as WG draft, chairs also should
consider how these two drafts should be drived to completion.

I think the first step for this cv draft before WG draft
is to keep consistency with ping draft and creare new version.
The other possibilities are to let these two be merged or move
some of ping related description in ping draft to cv draft.
This means that, by making cv as WG draft, pararell progressing
must be issued and it leads people confused by these drafts that
seem to be premature in terms of consistency.

An example between them, that I call "inconsistency", is:
Ping draft have a section for LSP-Ping extensions that is
for ACH and some TLVs while cv draft has another LSP-ping
extensions for TLVs. The issue in cv draft is that it is not clear
whether the TLVs should be applied for ACH TLV or TLVs in
LSP-ping (RFC4379) PDU.

I hope that my observation helps chairs' decision.

Thanks,
Yuji
.


Loa Andersson wrote:
>
> Working Group,
>
> this email is to start poll to adopt
> draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00.txt
> as an MPLS working group draft.
>
> After recent experience, the chairs would like to remind you all
> what it means to conduct a poll to adopt a draft as a working group
> draft.
>
> - Please recall that the IETF does not "vote." Polls of a working
> group are to gather information to help the chairs make their
> decisions. Voting is not part of the normal working methods of
> an IETF working group.
>
> - The "rough consensus" process used in the working group assumes
> that people expressing opinions are also participating in the
> development of standards documents.
>
> - Subscription to the list specifically to express an opinion is
> noticed by the chairs who has access to information on the new list
> members. Such behavior is not part of the normal working methods.
>
> - The purpose of a poll for adoption is to help the chairs understand
> the level of support for a document (i.e. who has read it, who
> believes it is a good starting point for working group work, who
> will contribute to the work) and whether there are any significant
> technical issues. Statements of objection must be backed up by
> proper technical reasons.
>
> So please respond to this poll indicating whether you support the
> adoption of this draft or stating your technical issues.
>
> Please also not that this draft has after a discussion with the
> working group chairs been renamed, it was earlier know as
> draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-extensions-01.
>
> This poll ends eob July 5.
>
>
> Loa and George
> mpls wg co-chairs
>