Re: [rsvp-dir] Our first work items for RSVP Directorate

Bruce Davie <bdavie@cisco.com> Mon, 07 June 2010 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <bdavie@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1773A68AF for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Enn-jKP9CWx for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42AA53A6832 for <rsvp-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 16:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-6.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAH4bDUyrR7Hu/2dsb2JhbACeKXGldZo2hRcE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.53,381,1272844800"; d="scan'208";a="541260584"
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jun 2010 23:19:25 +0000
Received: from [10.32.241.76] ([10.32.241.76]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o57NJOOP022178; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 23:19:24 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Bruce Davie <bdavie@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201006071729.o57HTkCC015181@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 19:19:23 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D89D9390-8CAB-4EF5-86FA-0FEE6E7C065D@cisco.com>
References: <BC6E4F60-899C-4C86-94C1-3F15D98303DD@cisco.com> <201006041739.o54HdaXY031030@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <9785CB6C-C88B-4B62-8662-57933C644339@cisco.com> <201006071729.o57HTkCC015181@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
To: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Our first work items for RSVP Directorate
X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: RSVP directorate <rsvp-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir>, <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rsvp-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rsvp-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir>, <mailto:rsvp-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 23:19:25 -0000

Bob,
 I think we're still figuring out the rules of engagement here...let me see if we can converge.
 Here is what I said to Lars about creating this directorate:
> 
> [...] I want to make a concrete suggestion that might help address your concern going forward. I talked with Bob Braden, Scott, and Francois about the formation of an "RSVP directorate". I think we could assemble say 5 people, and those people would make a commitment to perform the tasks mentioned above (read drafts, comment on their suitability for adoption, review and comment) and also beat the bushes to get more people to review and comment on drafts. I truly think that the BOF has lit a fire under the people who care about RSVP, which is why you're seeing people like Allain from SFR and Sanjay from Espial being more forthcoming than usual. In any case, while we can't change the past, the BOF sure seemed to me to suggest we can't shut down RSVP work at the IETF right now without ignoring the wishes of the folks who came to the BoF and spoke.


So, as I see it, the first job of the directorate is to review drafts that have been proposed for adoption, i.e., the 3 drafts that I mentioned below. 

You seem to be saying "why should the directorate waste its time reviewing drafts if the authors can't make the case that they are solving a problem that matters to someone, or will matter in the future". 
And I will grant you that the 3 drafts under consideration right now don't do a great job of making that case. So, how about I approach the authors and ask them for a paragraph or two to justify our reviewing cycles, along the lines of what you have said below. 

My hope is that they next time these guys show up at an IETF and present their drafts, they can at least have a few people who will admit to having read the drafts. 

Bruce


On Jun 7, 2010, at 1:29 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote:

> Bruce,
> 
> Perhaps there's a misunderstanding...
> 
> Yes, I'm sure the authors want them to be WG drafts. And I'm sure the drafts are technically interesting enough.
> 
> But I'm asking for the motivations from the authors that justifies why they think each draft is suitable to take IETF time as a WG draft (and our directorate reviewing time).
> 
> In your original email, you gave nice outlines of *what* each draft is about, and we've all seen the presentations. But none of the presentations or the nice text capsules answer questions like:
> 
> - This is needed for new applications w & x that are becoming important in the defence and the enterprise sectors
> - and yes, another way to do it is already standardised, but this new approach saves y amount of messages compared to approach z that we already have,
> - and n organisations/customers have said they would be interested in this being standardised and will contribute reviews.
> - or we admit no-one has said they would be interested, but it will provide a new fundamental capability that will enable p,q and r that people would not even be able to imagine they might want unless we standardse it.
> 
> ie, stuff specific to each doc, that satisfies the concerns that led to the creation of this directorate in the first place.
> 
> 
> Bob
> 
> At 18:48 04/06/2010, Bruce Davie wrote:
>> Bob,
>> The RSVP directorate will not, of course, decide the fate of these documents. Our job is to review documents and advise the TSV ADs and TSVWG chairs. I'm just trying to jump start that process, so that when the authors show up at TSVWG, (a) the chairs will be able to say whether it's even worth the time of the WG to hear a presentation on the draft (b) there will be at least a couple of people in the audience who have read the drafts.
>> 
>> For the record, all 3 of the drafts mentioned below were presented at IETF 76. The authors have asked that they be taken on as TSVWG items.
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
>> 
>> > Bruce,
>> >
>> > Will take a look.
>> >
>> > A process break point.... for a draft to be adopted by a working group, the authors have to present it (possibly a couple of times) then justify to the WG why it is ready to be adopted as a WG item. Shouldn't we raise a similar bar for these drafts, rather than pick up "a few drafts floating around"?
>> >
>> > We have probably all seen these presented (tho I personally haven't been in CCAMP so I will have missed narayanan). But I'd now like to see the authors justify to us why they are ready to be WG items, against the criteria established recently.
>> >
>> > Is this fair?
>> >
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> > At 17:41 04/06/2010, Bruce Davie wrote:
>> >> Folks,
>> >> There are a few drafts floating around that I think we should take a look at and make a recommendation to the ADs regarding their suitability for the TSVWG. These drafts are:
>> >>
>> >> draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing-02
>> >>
>> >> draft-lefaucheur-tsvwg-rsvp-multiple-preemption-02.txt
>> >> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-03.txt
>> >>
>> >> The first one seems pretty non-controversial. Here are comments from the author:
>> >> >
>> >> > draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing-02 is now a companion draft to draft-berger-ccamp-assoc-info-01, and contains only the RSVP-CAC-specific part of the resource sharing thingy. Given that TSVWG is the place for RSVP CAC extensions, yes, I would think TSVWG is the place for it. It's a very small draft basically defining a new codepoint (Resource Sharing Remote-ID Association) with a small behavioural change (only treat this Association-ID as binding on the Resv, not on the Path), so I don't envision any significant backpressure of the form "this is not a small change to RSVP".
>> >>
>> >> I would like to recommend that this be made a TSVWG work item. Any comments or concerns?
>> >>
>> >> The lefaucheur and polk drafts should probably be treated as a pair. Both relate to the issue of reserving an appropriate level of resource (e.g. bandwidth) in a single round trip when it is not known in advance how much resource is available. This is quite helpful, for example, in a video conferencing application that has a choice of codecs. The polk draft in particular was (I think) a catalyst for the RSVP discussion in Anaheim because it seemed to be stretching the scope of what has normally been done in TSVWG for RSVP maintenance.
>> >>
>> >> Given the scope of the directorate, I would like a couple of folks on the directorate to review those drafts and then we can discuss whether they should become TSVWG work items. Can I have some volunteers?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Bruce
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> rsvp-dir mailing list
>> >> rsvp-dir@ietf.org
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir
>> >
>> > ________________________________________________________________
>> > Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design