Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts

Clearly I vote for option C.

I have to ask the People on this thread to please read the document 
carefully.

Option A it is not possible. The document version 06  is not ready for 
LC , It needs a major rewrite.
I have only  put in about 50% of the work needed.
A new editor needs to take over and WE ( the WG ) need to finish the 
missing sections:

In Version 07 :

1) The editor list, and author's list need to be reviewed.
2) Review the rewritten L2TPv3  section. ( thanks to Carlos for the work)
3) BFD codes in section 8.3.5. needs to be reviewed ,  and update some 
text. ( some of the text is still wrong ).
4) Clear defect entry and exit criteria for static PWs using BFD need to 
be explained. Also what actions are taken at the AC.
5) The document needs an organizational re-write ( like the VCCV 
document needed ). I only did minor fixes and some removal of duplicated 
text.
6) The document still needs an complete English language review.

Note that because of  Dinesh's good writing stile, merging the ethernet 
section was not more then 1 hour of work.
It would be very simple to remove all mentions of ethernet now.

A WG last call is supposed to be issues when a document is pretty much 
completed. This document clearly needs work, and if the current editors 
no longer have time to complete the work , then new editors need to pick 
up the task.

Since the original authors actually lost the source of this draft ( the 
text in nroff, word , or xml format ), I spent over a day to reformat  
this very long document. I will gladly send the source nroff file to 
anybody who will pick up the editorial work. I do not wish to continue 
editing this document, but I want to make sure we progress this document 
in a timely manner.

Luca

Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> We had hoped to resolve this face to face before
> the PWE3 meeting next week but that now looks
> unlikely. We are  concerned that we need to
> resolve this without the issue absorbing all
> of the time in the WG meeting.
>
> In order to gauge the consensus of the WG we would
> would like to ask some questions.
>
> When considering how to approach the message mapping
> document issue, we think that the most important
> considerations are:
>
> 1) That we deliver a high quality document that describes
>    the design to the implementors and users.
>
> 2) That the Ethernet design is fully reviewed.
>
> 3) That there is consistency between the approaches used
>    for the various OAM mappings.
>
> 4) That the Ethernet design is delivered in an expedited
>    manner and the ATM and FR designs are also delivered
>    in a timely manner.
>
>
> We have three approaches:
>
> a) LC and publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-06.txt, and
>
>    Accept draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk as
>    a WG document
>
> b) LC and publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-07.txt
>    (i.e. Luca's rewrite) but without  the Ethernet
>    section, and
>
>    Accept draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk as a WG
>    document
>
> c) Use publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-07.txt  as
>    the basis for ongoing work.
>
> Before any document is sent to the IESG for publication
> we will ensure contributions are appropriately acknowledged
> through  editorship, authorship, & acknowledgments. So
> please set any such issues aside and focus on the best
> document to deliver to our users.
>
> Please also set aside the poor etiquette that has taken
> place, and  focus on  how best to deliver  the required
> documentation to the community. On the basis of
> considerations 1..4 above, which documentation
> approach, a, b or c, do you consider most likely to
> achieve the goals of the WG?
>
>
> Stewart & Matthew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3