Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP directorate formed

Bruce Davie <> Wed, 14 July 2010 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298143A6A75 for <>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:56:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tJtigX8Zqq2T for <>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F107A3A6A68 for <>; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:56:47 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results:; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEALKJPUyrR7Ht/2dsb2JhbACfa3GmKJpWhSQEiFA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,202,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="343962057"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 Jul 2010 16:56:42 +0000
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6EGufJh024140; Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:56:42 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Bruce Davie <>
In-Reply-To: <C4CF59712AD04C9A82B9E154CC156C4F@23FX1C1>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:56:41 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <><><> <> <C4CF59712AD04C9A82B9E154CC156C4F@23FX1C1>
To: David Harrington <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
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: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:56:49 -0000

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?


> 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.


> dbh
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: 
>> [] On Behalf Of Bruce Davie
>> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:05 PM
>> To:
>> Cc:
>> 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 
>> Additional information about the directorate is at 
>>>>> Lars
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rsvp-dir mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> rsvp-dir mailing list