Re: [mpls] Pete Resnick's No Objection on charter-ietf-mpls-05-01: (with COMMENT)

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Pete,

>    "The responsibility includes..."
> 
> What an odd construction. Can better words be chosen?

I will make it "The responsibilities of this working group include..."
Although since the previous paragraph says "The MPLS working group is responsible..." I would say it is PDO.

> -   Maintain existing MPLS requirements, mechanisms, and protocols,
>     in coordination with other working groups, e.g. CCAMP, PWE3
>     and OPSAWG working groups.
> 
> I'm not sure what work item(s) you're talking about here. Is the WG
> updating existing requirements documents and/or protocol documents in
> response to new requirements from CCAMP, PWE3, and OPSAWG? Not clear
> from what's said what is being referred to.

We discussed in jabber.
The coordination is because many of the protocols and procedures span WGs, and because the requirements often come from other WGs.
I will add "work in overlapping areas"
I will add that the things what is maintained is in RFCs.

> -   Evolve key MPLS protocols, including LDP, tLDP, mLDP, RSVP-TE
>     and LSP Ping to meet new requirements.
> 
> Same question as above. "Evolve" is an odd word to choose, and I'm
> curious if the list of protocols is exhaustive. Please clarify.

"Evolve" is a warm and furry word. We should cherish it.
The list of protocols is nearly exhaustive, but we got exhausted trying to list them all.

> -   Determine MPLS-specific aspects of traffic engineering for
>     multi-areas/multi-AS in cooperation with the CCAMP WG
> 
> Is there a reason this bullet changed from the previous version? It seems
> to have removed the "and document it" part.

The previous version read...

| The first generation of the MPLS standards are largely complete, 
| and the current WG work items are: 
[snip]
| - MPLS-specific aspects of traffic engineering for multi-areas/multi-AS 
| in cooperation with the CCAMP WG 

I think it now says a little more, not less.

> I'm not going to block this rechartering, but I would like to hear why
> the charter became (apparently) more mushy than it had been.

Ciao,
Adrian