Re: [rsvp-dir] Getting RSVP Directorate Feedback into TSVWG

"James M. Polk" <> Mon, 01 November 2010 23:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7923A6A8C for <>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FQdAqTN8cPVq for <>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B523A6A6B for <>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,277,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="245252284"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2010 23:58:57 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA1NwuAA027247; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:58:56 GMT
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:58:54 -0500
To: Bruce Davie <>, "James M. Polk" <>
From: "James M. Polk" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Getting RSVP Directorate Feedback into TSVWG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: RSVP directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 23:58:56 -0000


Thanks for responding so quickly. Part of my reaction was to what the 
ADs said in Maastricht during TSVWG, that they had no input from the 
Directorate, and the discussion went downhill from there IMO. 
Depending on who you believe, even after listening to the meeting 
audio, there was

- mention of the need for two independent implementations in order 
for the ADs to agree to have MULTI_TSPEC adopted as a WG item (by one AD);
- there was mention of the need for 5 full reviews of any new 
RSVP/IntServ based ID before one AD would consider recommending to 
TSVWG that they adopt this item (this by the other AD).

With either one of the above, the bar is set quite high (in fact 
higher than I've ever experienced in the IETF).

Additionally, the discussion of the first topic (needing two 
implementations to be considered a WG item) devolved IMO when Randy 
Stewart joined the discussion by indicating that this is what he does 
for all his SCTP IDs, therefore the practice ought to used for everything.

No one in the WG agreed to this other than Randy, and in fact, had 
several folks stating on the mic this was out of line to ask for 
(Matt Mathis, Fred Baker, and Ken Carlberg if memory serves).


At 05:55 PM 11/1/2010, Bruce Davie wrote:
>  I have reviewed the multiple tspec draft and I am in favor of its 
> adoption (as I think I have said before, and, IIRC, I provided 
> details as to why). I think Lixia is also on record as supporting that draft.
>  I have asked the directorate for feedback a couple of times, and 
> Bob Briscoe gave some feedback, which led to me gather more info 
> from you as to why these drafts were worthy of consideration. I 
> have provided that info to the directorate.
>  I will craft a more publicly acceptable email for the TSVWG list. 
> But I can't speak much more for the directorate than I have done here.
>On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:50 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
> > All
> >
> > This is written as both the TSVWG chair and as an individual 
> author of several active IDs into TSVWG.
> >
> > As an individual, I didn't think I needed to request this, but I 
> am anyway - because I haven't received any feedback from the RSVP 
> Directorate to date, and we're 5 days away from the next IETF meeting.
> >
> > I am requesting that the RSVP Directorate review these two IDs
> >
> > 
> and
> > 
> >
> > Are either or both of these IDs worth the effort of the TSVWG to 
> take on a WG items (or not)?
> >
> > Lars freely admits that he considers IntServ to be joined with 
> RSVP wrt the TSVWG charter. We chairs are crafting text for a 
> charter update to reflect that explicitly.
> >
> > The MULTI_TSPEC ID has been presented at every IETF, in TSVWG, 
> since San Francisco -- and really was the reason this Directorate 
> formed (because the ADs chose to punt the ball wrt whether to allow 
> the adoption of this WG item by TSVWG).  This Directorate had a BoF 
> of sorts in Anaheim, which was well attended and included a lot of 
> energy.  At issue is that no one from the Directorate provided an 
> ounce of input into TSVWG for the next IETF (in Maastricht), and I 
> - as chair - haven't heard from any of you since Maastricht on 
> either of the documents listed above one way or the other.
> >
> > This is where I put my WG chair hat on, as ask - rather bluntly - 
> why there has been zero input into TSVWG even though the 
> Directorate charter (if you will) clearly states reviewing RSVP 
> based IDs is the purpose of the Directorate, and the fact that 
> there are now two IDs sitting in completely limbo awaiting WG input 
> from the Directorate.
> >
> > I realize everyone's time here is quite busy, but these IDs need 
> feedback from those chartered to give said feedback.
> >
> > Please response on to this nudge on the TSVWG list.
> >
> > James
> >