IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of PSC related drafts

Markus Jork <mjork@juniper.net> Mon, 26 August 2013 15:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mjork@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7238B21F9B57 for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.250, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Vul28YBE3QZ for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:07:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from db9outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (mail-db9lp0253.outbound.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C530721F9D2B for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:07:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail223-DB9-R.bigfish.com (10.174.16.239) by DB9EHSOBE027.bigfish.com (10.174.14.90) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:07:10 +0000
Received: from mail223-DB9 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail223-DB9-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB6BD2C0135; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:07:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -22
X-BigFish: VPS-22(zz9371I146fI542I1432Izz1f42h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hz8dhz1de098h1033IL17326ah186068h8275dh1de097hz2fh2a8h839h944hd24hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1de9h1dfeh1dffh1e1dh1fe8h1ff5h9a9j1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail223-DB9: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=mjork@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(52314003)(199002)(13464003)(377454003)(51704005)(189002)(74876001)(69226001)(53806001)(54316002)(81542001)(4396001)(47736001)(15202345003)(79102001)(74316001)(81342001)(47446002)(31966008)(74662001)(74502001)(76482001)(74706001)(56816003)(1411001)(54356001)(56776001)(77096001)(80976001)(66066001)(65816001)(59766001)(77982001)(74366001)(51856001)(46102001)(63696002)(47976001)(80022001)(49866001)(83072001)(50986001)(76576001)(19580405001)(19580395003)(76786001)(76796001)(33646001)(83322001)(81816001)(81686001)(15975445006)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB230; H:BLUPR05MB230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.232.2; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
Received: from mail223-DB9 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail223-DB9 (MessageSwitch) id 1377529628483603_1247; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:07:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from DB9EHSMHS032.bigfish.com (unknown [10.174.16.235]) by mail223-DB9.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69124100045; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:07:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by DB9EHSMHS032.bigfish.com (10.174.14.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:07:05 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.191.20) by BL2PRD0510HT003.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.347.3; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:07:05 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.191.20) by BLUPR05MB230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.191.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.745.25; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:07:03 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.226]) by BLUPR05MB230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.12.226]) with mapi id 15.00.0745.000; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:07:03 +0000
From: Markus Jork <mjork@juniper.net>
To: "huubatwork@gmail.com" <huubatwork@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of PSC related drafts
Thread-Index: AQHOoKGpnByk+rx3CkuUmn4rOjhHlZmnkSbg
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:07:02 +0000
Message-ID: <8be8a162f75c4c61a48c925b2f294dde@BLUPR05MB230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <79E5D3D3-6AB4-4CE7-97A9-6D324C053490@gmail.com> <52186AC2.8030804@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52186AC2.8030804@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [66.129.232.2]
x-forefront-prvs: 0950706AC1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn%
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of PSC related drafts
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:07:21 -0000

I did not attend the Berlin IETF and the minutes don't seem to be out yet, so I don't know to what extent this was discussed there.
But it seems most (all?) reviewers of the resulting drafts did not really like the "diff" approach. That sends a pretty clear message that maybe this wasn't such a great idea after all.
Even after looking at the slides, I'm not clear what the motivation was to choose the "diff" format. Was having a set of update drafts somehow meant to ease coordination with the ITU?
Anyway, the main audience for a standards track RFC are the implementers and users of the technology. So an RFC should be written to be easily understood and digested by its audience. And in my opinion the format chosen for this set of PSC drafts is not ideal in that regard.

-Markus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Huub van Helvoort
> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:12 AM
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of PSC related drafts
> 
> All reviewers of the drafts,
> 
> draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority
> draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-sd
> draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc
> raft-cdh-mpls-tp-psc-non-revertive
> draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates
> 
> and anybody else who wants to contribute:
> 
> I have noticed your concern regarding the way each of these drafts should be
> used to address RFC6378.
> 
> I would like to point you this presentation in the IETF87 meeting which
> contains a proposed forward path:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-mpls-15.ppt
> 
> In this thread the discussion for supporting the options mentioned in the
> slides has already started:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg10400.html
> 
> Best regards, Huub.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email