Re: [Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02

"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <> Tue, 05 November 2019 19:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617F51209C0; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:57:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YDtVnKIeuJIT; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 348EB12011E; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:56:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd ( []) by ( with SMTP id xA5Jfx4J036869; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:56:48 -0500
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id 2w3es21suk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 05 Nov 2019 14:56:38 -0500
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xA5JtwE7005800; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:55:59 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id xA5JtteL005723 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:55:55 -0500
Received: from ( []) by (Service) with ESMTP id F23254030710; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 19:55:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Service) with ESMTPS id D9EF94030706; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 19:55:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0468.000; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:55:54 -0500
To: "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "<> (" <>
Thread-Topic: Rtgdir last call review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02
Thread-Index: AQHVj3+PJNOs2JNe3EifHLBvdjFz0ad0rX2AgAa1tZCAAIRIgIABFnug
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 19:55:53 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <032601d58fc4$b8564080$2902c180$> <> <040c01d59359$555872d0$00095870$>
In-Reply-To: <040c01d59359$555872d0$00095870$>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-05_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1911050162
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Pce] Rtgdir last call review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Path Computation Element <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 19:57:06 -0000

Hi Adrian,

What you say is all correct. But it doesn't help with the confusion. I just need to know if this is an individual draft requesting to be PS or is it requested by a working group and (for whatever reason) the filename was not changed to reflect it. There's several guideline documents on filenames:

There is no need for chairs to spend "weeks" adopting or last calling. What is needed though is for the filename to reflect the correct "source". RFC6174 provides the logistics. Uploading with a wg filename takes seconds (if all is working correctly😊).

As you say, you are an author hoping to quickly progress your document. I'll talk with the PCE chairs as they requested the publication and unless I'm mis-interpreting this can be quickly fixed.


-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel <> 
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2019 4:47 PM
Subject: RE: Rtgdir last call review of draft-farrel-pce-stateful-flags-02

Hello Deborah,

I wonder whether something has changed in the IETF process that I'm not aware of. That is possible.

> Adrian, I'm also a bit confused on the intention of the draft. While 
> the tools are not error checking a draft with intended status of PS 
> against a title indicating an individual submission, the title does 
> indicate the source of the document. With the current title, this 
> document is an individual submission to the IETF stream. If this is a 
> product of the working group, the title needs to reflect it. As it is 
> requested to be "PS", it does need to reflect the associated working 
> group.

The document has not been adopted by the working group, but it has been last called by the working group.
While the WG chairs are allowed to adopt a document off their own bat, they prefer to use an adoption poll whenever they do an adoption. That can add a two week poll, but there is also a queue in many working groups, so a document can end up dying of boredom.

If you can point me at the process rule that says that document emerging from a WG must have a specific name format then I guess we can change the document (and also write a draft to change the rule ;-) 

If you can point me at the rule that says Standards Track documents must be the product of a working group (not, for example, AD sponsored) I'll be surprised.

> While it is a bit surprising this was not raised in WG Last Call 
> (hopefully folks have read the document),

The chairs did call out the direct progression of this draft to WG last call in a mail to the list prior to starting the last call.

> it will definitely be flagged with the other Area Directorate reviews 
> and IESG review.

I shall delight in helping them to understand the processes of which they are guardians :-)

> While the working group cycle was very short, the resulting 
> publication cycle will be very long.

Oh, I have long ago given up on doing things to simply follow the path of least resistance. The IESG needs to recognise that they are supposed to facilitate publication (of good documents) not get in the way! If the resulting cycle is long we will at least know why.

> As the WG LC was based on PS status, I would conclude the group is ok 
> with PS. Either you can change the title to reflect a product of the 
> pce working group or change the status to Informational and I'll take 
> it forward as an individual submission. If you change the title to a 
> product of the pce working group, I'll follow up with a note to the 
> list to double check if anyone has any concerns. And then we can move 
> ahead.

I do hope that we will not get hung up on any misunderstandings of process. As you observe, the publication cycle for drafts has become long. Many times they leave the WG and don't hit the RFC Editor Queue for four months.. I see the process including:
- Shepherd review
- Directorate review
- AD review
- IETF last call
- Late directorate reviews
- IESG review
Each of these has three steps:
- Queued for action
- Review period
- Update period

Even when the authors are immediately responsive to any review comments raised, this can drag on a long time. If each review is scheduled for two weeks, that's 12 weeks burned. If the "silent" time to queue for action is also a week or two, you can quickly see why the tail of our process has become a burden. Suddenly the RFC Editor's 8 week queue seems short!

> Looking forward to your choice😊

My choice as author is to follow IETF process.
You've had a publication request, from the PCE working group to publish an Internet-Draft on the Standards Track.
I hope we can proceed with that without further delay.