Re: [mpls-tp] poll to makedraft-andersson-mpls-tp-process-03.txt aworking group document

Hi,

There is an alternative for this draft I believe, at least for its content. The IAB seems to be in love with how the whole MPLS-TP process is working (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-mpls-tp-uncoord-harmful). Good for them but they fail to mention how the overall process is working in practice. I'd propose to merge the two. I fail to see why we need a document that praises the process and another one describing it.

Best,

	Rolf

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of tom.petch
> Sent: Mittwoch, 22. Juli 2009 18:23
> To: Adrian Farrel; Loa Andersson
> Cc: mpls-tp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] poll to makedraft-andersson-mpls-tp-process-
> 03.txt aworking group document
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>; "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.nu>
> Cc: <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 10:59 PM
> Subject: Re: poll to makedraft-andersson-mpls-tp-process-03.txt a
> working group
> document
> 
> > Since the thread appears to have died down (with the consensus call
> for
> > adoption) I just wanted to chime in on a couple of matters of process.
> >
> > Tom responded to Loa...
> >
> > >> My take has been (and still is) that we (as a working group or
> group of
> > >> working groups)
> > >
> > > Um.  mpls-tp has a mailing list for discussion but is not a Working
> Group,
> > > of
> > > the IETF or anything else; yes?
> > >
> > > I had thought that mpls-tp was a Working Group, looked for a
> Charter,
> > > found
> > > there wasn't one, looked for a slot in an IETF agenda, no joy and
> have now
> > > worked out that it is not a Working Group per se.
> > >
> > > This does make a difference to the interpretation of this process
> draft,
> > > which
> > > makes many references to Working Groups so I think that this point
> needs
> > > spelling out in it.
> >
> > So, what is happening is that it has been recognised that MPLS-TP is
> a topic
> > that spans multiple working groups. It was decided to not charter a
> separate
> > working group because the overlap was considerable. However, a
> separate
> > mailing list was created because:
> > - It meant that all of the work could be followed in one place
> >   without having to monitor three mailing lists.
> > - It allows people in the relevant WGs who are not
> >   interested in MPLS-TP to avoind being swamped.
> >
> > We (the ADs and chairs) agreed that consensus calls should be made
> across
> > all of the relevant working groups, but judged only on the MPLS-TP
> mailing
> > list.
> >
> > When an I-D is adtoped as a working group document, it is adopted by
> a
> > specific working group (in this case by the MPLS working group).
> 
> I think that more of this needs spelling out in the process document
> (once the
> process allows updates to occur:-).
> 
> I had gathered most of it but only at the time of IETF74, despite
> having joined this list at the start (and being already on, eg, MPLS
> and CCAMP
> lists). I had failed to understand parts of the process document - as
> some of my
> comments showed - through ignorance of the nature of 'mpls-tp' within
> the IETF.
> 
> And ...
> 
> >
> > Tom also wrote:
> >
> > > After Working Group Last Call, in most IETF Working Groups, a
> document
> > > is produced by a Document Shepherd, which may provoke further WG
> > > discussion and perhaps another WG Last Call, an AD review, which
> may
> > > provoke further discussion etc, an IETF Last Call, which may
> provoke
> > > further
> > > discussion etc and only then does it go to the IESG, which may
> provoke
> > > further discussion etc.
> >
> > I think you are slightly out with this.
> > After WG last call, the I-D is updated to address the WG comments.The
> WG
> > chiars then make a judgement on whether a further WG last call is
> needed.
> > Only once this cycle has completed does the Document Shepherd get
> involved.
> > Her job is simply to perform the write-up for the AD.
> 
> ... yes; and I have seen the write-up by a Document Shepherd posted to
> a list
> and cause a discussion that questioned whether or not the I-D should
> proceed to
> become an RFC at all: these things happen:-)
> 
> The generic issue, which the process I-D does not seem to be clear on,
> is
> whether, when an I-D is returned to a WG for further revision, perhaps
> further
> Working Last Calls, the ITU-T still receives the same liaisons and
> opportunities
> to accept or reject the changes.
> 
> Again, something to raise when the I-D re-appears.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
>  > Cheers,
> > Adrian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> mpls-tp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp