[mpls] Resolving the most recent ITU liaison statement on PSC

["Eric Osborne (eosborne)" <[e-mail]>]

WG-

  As you probably know, there have been a series of liaison statements exchanged between the ITU and the MPLS WG on PSC.  The most recent LS is this one:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1234/

and the index of all of them is here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/

(I will refer to the most recent liaison as LS005 as that's what the ITU called it)

LS005 raised ten points that we need to come to closure on.  'come to closure' does not mean "agree to implement" or "dig in against".  It means "as a WG, figure out what, if anything, we should do with those points".

A number of us met earlier today to discuss the ten points and various drafts and steps being taken.  Here's where we stand (thanks to Jeong-Dong for the list):

- Point 1: draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority-00 (submitted in 2013-02-18)
- Point 2: draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates-00 (submitted in 2013-02-11)
- Point 3: draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc-00 (submitted in 2013-02-13)
- Point 4: draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-sd-00 (submitted in 2013-03-12)
- Point 5: Not an issue any more
- Point 6: Not an issue any more
- Point 7: To be covered in draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates-01
- Point 8: draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates-00 (submitted in 2013-02-11)
- Point 9: draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority-00 (submitted in 2013-02-18 to support Freeze)
               draft-cdh-mpls-tp-psc-non-revertive-00 (will be submitted in 2013-03-11 to support MS-W 
                                                                                 and further clarify the non-revertive operation)
- Point 10: draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority-00 (submitted in 2013-02-18)

It works out like this:
- two points (5, 6) are nonissues
- two points (2, 8) are addressed in draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates-00 which I presented yesterday
- the remainings six points are covered in the four remaining drafts

These drafts need to be read and commented upon.  We have a small group of interested parties that need to read them all and make sure that they're sound.  The goal of this group is *not* to decide whether the solutions are right or wrong, or even whether the problems they address should be solved.  Think of it as a mini-review team that will go over the drafts to make sure they are coherent and address the problem(s) they purport to address.

Once that is done (hopefully next week, maybe the week after), assuming the drafts are sound we will start threads on the mailing list, one for each draft, to discuss the problem and proposed solution.  This makes it easy for anyone to filter out the threads they don't want and to pay rapt attention to the ones they do.

Right now, the end goal is to produce a single document which incorporates all of those drafts so that we only have to touch PSC once.  That may or may not happen depending on whether the docs move forward at the same rate, we'll have to figure that part out as we get there.

The current list of mini-review team members is cc'd.  Would anyone else like to be on this list?  (Yaacov, I assume you would like to be there).  I plan to start the thread early next week so please try to let me know by then, but later is always better than never.  It shouldn't be that much work (hah!), we intend for the vast majority of the technical discussion to happen on the mailing list.

Thanks to everyone who met this afternoon!




eric