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

"Adrian Farrel" <> Mon, 04 November 2019 21:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DB9120A12; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 13:46:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9YFWRCNgrVOP; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 13:46:42 -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 8EC2B1209AA; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 13:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xA4Lkb1w030776; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 21:46:37 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61F9B22044; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 21:46:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D0EA22042; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 21:46:37 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id xA4LkaSc026465 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Nov 2019 21:46:36 GMT
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A'" <>, <>
Cc: <>, <>
References: <> <032601d58fc4$b8564080$2902c180$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 21:46:35 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <040c01d59359$555872d0$00095870$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHi2ihjgA1IJnmANVApJp+clEDdkAPB2fhLAfuauBenMwn1YA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.292-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--17.292-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--17.291900-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: yebcs53SkkCWfDtBOz4q23FPUrVDm6jtyjSDuGPl69BgV1Ynib6P9Yu3 renu5Y0wz+mxSdqUNTPwRAwUN890Yr32nVbEl2+nihCjnGX2dsTg02I3oyGU8I7PIKxhHA1po4b tJZ/5yNOKsZmCu5eJwI5poZ19po0VbDFcgAHb6y2Hov5mQmFcLpRRlLuwwc4Y1zm/LsNdbGMX6P qFRNjyL7Q+EdyPY5f5iQkgbvdF4PlUxNF+2CpbfOIfK/Jd5eHmb1d/zpzApVogVZAf8m502GqC9 lWWJTGcM8x+FY6WmoJSQ4GSjnWYfN+KxSfgsAbHyPB9gu9vGB47IFMOvFEK2E/cRvj5stP67n9V s5dSf+ui69uZAkPz/QCeNsrtHscCj5d0DBvgJ9GY57FTwTTL0abwyy5bAB/9+S5C/08hWc2jlZy ZuwV4Skw1PNUciM5AH833a9AIR6ocuDXH+OE6iLhijfgSVFJ1HhxOTh/VWUunRvssirgAK+Q0YM QBSfJe7k3Erq8YIpXkdejbbduhhtuKgYKeCK0EikdH3EQaETXksqhWpEr2icSk16QAkest2eiq5 HAdjcHyLIzuiFUzWk6OafU4QDW0bSVM3L9nNgOtXfIaTF+QAiFaRs/1PktIm3Topne68pos8m1a lsmNjewlucRQOlkyfOQn++PNxdJwHv8gbNoM/k7yqWc5cVLPoae+ev6zOlKKkqQtjHqb3Xzbp9R /6gJIYsRgXt0uK9l9tBeQTRQCX8C1mqtzsQy2rdLFFKR7dulRvgR0hkbG4KsoAw12Y1UThH3OuN mqqxY9o9m14AsluiOCGxs/wVoQSSOWVJeuO1CDGx/OQ1GV8tp/U3XwL5kCsOzOncrmCoOOhzOa6 g8KrdB+cK7NjHgcwf3+mkuc8owBc+lKVhU8oxY2yRxIqC4uphQBBU0ji18=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 21:46:49 -0000

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.