IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yaacov Weingarten <wyaacov@gmail.com> Mon, 26 August 2013 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <wyaacov@gmail.com>
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 7AF3321E804E for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 4lGE6wbt10xt for <mpls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x233.google.com (mail-we0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47ACA21E80A5 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id t58so2921933wes.24 for <mpls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=lJyvdKhfIoO2++63hyvW1pNIA60X0znQmpyYhVkhC70=; b=udN6KzXaWdZzaX74rwTHlUayLEVU92sqq/jE8GsFPer6ZA9q3VJAaEK/mqu51wVqDi D8i1MBSbCs7ySaDdGnaLZAyFBh0lqLZVQRFvRyHEsFFhVVagIHwTu7ws5FQ52R4GrVnZ 3fBSnLryyxl+O3B9gqqF2UJFHqwbM6hUMlYpFt+Q7rIHXy8LXb1EUgy8Vol44HE5WdRb U1+lCcXqO56a4ZJHaCDWkdE/8JR0cuZqTQeOxPVuGeiQ9EbX6YuGCUfd60FUb7u6X69a Jl8EyBMo3rW7G+3c/pfp75pkrb1bUhhBgas+XXkJV0vu/mzJHpGjLNM5UEBFZlGLFZrP y74Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.91.82 with SMTP id cc18mr8296439wib.7.1377539303437; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.164.200 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.164.200 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8be8a162f75c4c61a48c925b2f294dde@BLUPR05MB230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <79E5D3D3-6AB4-4CE7-97A9-6D324C053490@gmail.com> <52186AC2.8030804@gmail.com> <8be8a162f75c4c61a48c925b2f294dde@BLUPR05MB230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:48:23 +0300
Message-ID: <CAM0WBXVYeDBf4UQCW8w46gFwTx9+g1jO+jDixErnMD5cS5M_dA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yaacov Weingarten <wyaacov@gmail.com>
To: Markus Jork <mjork@juniper.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d043be244d879b504e4dd5c5b"
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "huubatwork@gmail.com" <huubatwork@gmail.com>
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 17:48:25 -0000

Hi.
I fully agree with Markus on this. We should also keep in mind that, at
least in theory, each RFC should strive to be a stand-alone document. In
addition, as I pointed out in one of my reviews this could lead to
contradictory "corrections" that no reader's guide draft could overcome!

BR,
yaacov
On Aug 26, 2013 6:07 PM, "Markus Jork" <mjork@juniper.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email