Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP directorate formed

"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Mon, 10 May 2010 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
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 ABFB23A6C1C for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 13:48:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.162, BAYES_40=-0.185]
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 mVKx+0YHJb1o for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 May 2010 13:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.96]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A7EE3A6C8A for <rsvp-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 May 2010 13:42:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.59]) by qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Fmyo1e0041GhbT859wiQzP; Mon, 10 May 2010 20:42:24 +0000
Received: from Harrington73653 ([67.189.235.106]) by omta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id FwiP1e0082JQnJT3TwiPSf; Mon, 10 May 2010 20:42:24 +0000
From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: "'James M. Polk'" <jmpolk@cisco.com>, "'Lars Eggert'" <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
References: <E119C8DF-64CE-46DD-976B-1C9750720F45@nokia.com> <201005101816.o4AIGdHL021437@sj-core-2.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:42:21 -0400
Message-ID: <0cd701caf081$4a944980$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <201005101816.o4AIGdHL021437@sj-core-2.cisco.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: Acrwbdigm0gHEkQoSHqWLZxKK5gc8gAEXUUg
Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, rsvp-dir@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP directorate formed
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, 10 May 2010 20:48:37 -0000

Hi,

I recommend the first bullet of the rsvp-dir tasks be slightly
modified:
OLD:
>   * 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.
NEW:
>   * 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, including whether the proposal fits within the
charter of
      the TSVWG whose RSVP scope is limited to minor extensions and
maintenance.

If the rsvp-dir does not find it to be within the scope of TSVWG, then
the work would
require a charter deliverable update with AD approval, I assume.
If Intserv is not within the charter, then Intserv proposals are
presumably
going to be found not in scope.
Then the TSVWG chairs can presumbaly use the normal "this is the
catch-all WG" logic
to determine WG consensus and get AD approval for the new work item.

(If there is consensus that this would help the situation, we could
update the TSVWG 
charter to also include Intserv minor updates and maintenance.)

my $.02
dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rsvp-dir-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:rsvp-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:17 PM
> To: Lars Eggert
> Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk; rsvp-dir@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP directorate formed
> 
> Lars
> 
> 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)?
> 
> James
> 
> At 08:01 AM 5/10/2010, Lars Eggert wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >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 rsv-dir@ietf.org. Additional 
> >information about the directorate is at 
> >http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/RSVP-Directorate.
> >
> >Lars
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rsvp-dir mailing list
> rsvp-dir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir
>