Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP directorate formed

"James M. Polk" <> Mon, 10 May 2010 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD7DB28C20E for <>; Mon, 10 May 2010 11:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.386
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.213, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GPtvrqqGQPUx for <>; Mon, 10 May 2010 11:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803E63A6A6D for <>; Mon, 10 May 2010 11:16:51 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAD/q50urR7H+/2dsb2JhbACeI3GjWZlPgmCCNASDQQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.52,363,1270425600"; d="scan'208";a="127511395"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 10 May 2010 18:16:39 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o4AIGdHL021437; Mon, 10 May 2010 18:16:39 GMT
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:16:38 -0500
To: Lars Eggert <>
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] RSVP directorate formed
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, 10 May 2010 18:23:18 -0000


AS a follow-on to the public reply...

{I reduced the To: and cc: lists}

What do we do about the TSVWG charter saying RSVP is only to do minor 
extensions and maintenance, when at least one individual ID that 
wants to become a TSV WG item is considered by some to be more than 
minor (MULTI_TSPEC that creates a new Object)?

I know the ADs can approve anything to become a WG item (within 
reason), including this ID - but one of the things this process 
highlighted (at least to me) is that IntServ is nowhere in the TSVWG 
charter, and this particular ID is an extension to IntServ.

Do we chairs propose new charter text that addresses just this small 
omission, or do we chairs propose more of what this directorate is 
about (i.e., what they are to help with)?


At 08:01 AM 5/10/2010, Lars Eggert wrote:
>following the discussion during the IETF-77 TSVAREA meeting on how 
>to better review and progress extensions to (non-TE) RSVP and 
>IntServ, the transport area directors have formed a new RSVP 
>directorate and given it these tasks:
>   * Review of all new work related to RSVP and Integrated Services that
>     is proposed for IETF adoption. The purpose of this review is to
>     advise the ADs and the chairs of the Transport Area Working Group
>     (TSVWG) on whether a particular proposal should be taken on as a
>     work item. The directorate will continue to guide and review such
>     new work in TSVWG until it is ready for publication as an RFC.
>   * Review of selected documents during IETF last call or under IESG
>     review. The directorate monitors ongoing IETF work and should
>     independently decide when a document will benefit from their review,
>     assign a reviewer and enter into a follow-on discussion with the
>     authors. When deemed necessary, the area directors will on occasion
>     directly consult the directorate while forming their opinion on
>     selected documents being under review by the IESG.
>   * Cross-working group review. RSVP documents may have relevance to
>     several working groups, including TSVWG and MPLS-related groups
>     such as MPLS WG and CCAMP WG. The directorate will ensure that
>     drafts submitted to TSV WG are reviewed in the appropriate MPLS-related
>     WGs if necessary, and will bring drafts from the MPLS-related WGs
>     to the attention of the TSV WG as appropriate.
>The directorate can be reached at Additional 
>information about the directorate is at