Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP directorate formed

[Bruce Davie <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 8, 2010, at 2:42 PM, David Harrington wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> A few questions.

Some answers below.

> 
> Is there any progress on 
> "RSVP-Directorate-Reviews describes the current guidelines for RSVP
> directorate reviewers"?
> It would be good to have some consistency to review criteria about
> whether a proposal is "worthy".
> Will you build this interacively using a wiki, or is somebody going to
> take an action item to do this?

While we've had discussion on the list about what the criteria are, it hasn't been documented there. I agree that would be good, so I'll put it on my to-do list, but of course other members of the Directorate are welcome to jump in.

> 
> How will recommendations about which WG should consider adopting the
> drafts be made?
> which criteria will be used to justify a recommendation for passing a
> draft to a specific WG?

I think the criteria will follow from what I asked the authors to provide for the 3 drafts under current consideration, which I include below:

> - What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv are you trying to solve?
> - What class of application will benefit if your draft becomes a standard?
> - Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think there is)? If so, explain how your solution is better.
> - What new capability will we have if this draft becomes a standard?
> - What community of users will benefit from this work?

If the directorate feels that the draft solves a real problem, benefits some class of apps & users, doesn't simply replicate another existing solution, etc, then that would I think form the basis for a recommendation to take it to the WG. And of course it should be technically solid enough to start a WG effort (but would not need to be perfect, of course, to start with).


> It will obviously be a WG choice to decide whether to adopt a draft.
> So will you recommendation be made to the suthor "we think you should
> take it to WG XXX" or to the WG "we think the WG should look at draft
> XXX, because we think the draft is worthy of considerations and we
> think it fits within your WG scope"?

I was imagining the latter.

> 
> Can we make sure that reviews and supporting documents get posted to
> the rsvp-dir archive?

Sure

> is the rsvp-dir archive private or public?
> 

I would argue for private. Anything that we want to be public should be sent to the appropriate WG, IMHO.

Bruce


> dbh
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] 
>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bruce Davie
>> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:05 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP directorate formed
>> 
>> Gorry,
>> I have asked the directorate to start by looking at 3 drafts 
>> that have been proposed as WG items:
>> 
>> draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing-02 
>> 
>> draft-lefaucheur-tsvwg-rsvp-multiple-preemption-02.txt
>> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-03.txt
>> 
>> In response to some questions from Bob Briscoe, I then asked 
>> all the authors to provide short justifications for why their 
>> drafts should be adopted (I can pass these on to you if that 
>> would be helpful).
>> 
>> With that information in hand, I have asked the directorate 
>> to try to get some reviews done before the upcoming meeting.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the meeting in 
>> Maastricht. I agree, it would be great if one of the other 
>> directorate members were to introduce our little team in the 
>> meeting. Any volunteers?
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hello RSVP directorate!
>>> 
>>> Now that a directorate exists, I'd like help in two ways to 
>> manage the RSVP work in TSVWG:
>>> 
>>> 1) I'm assuming that you will help with selecting 
>> appropriate work for adoption of TSVWG (as per the top bullet 
>> below). How do you see this working, specifically there are a 
>> number of drafts that currently have not become work items - 
>> despite author pleas - while we waited for clarification of 
>> how to handle RSVP work. Undoubtedly I'll be asked if these 
>> can become work items. As usual I'll push-back on need to do 
>> the work, and people to review/contribute to the drafts. Are 
>> there current drafts know to the directorate that would seem 
>> ready and important enough that the WG should consider taking 
>> these on?
>>> 
>>> 2) Would someone from the directorate like to say "hi we're 
>> here and this is our remit" - taht would be helpful in the 
>> tsvwg meeting!
>>> 
>>> Gorry
>>> 
>>>> 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 [e-mail]. 
>> Additional information about the directorate is at 
>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/RSVP-Directorate.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Lars
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rsvp-dir mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> rsvp-dir mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir
>