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

Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk> Fri, 04 June 2010 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
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 EF85C3A67AB for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.775
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.775 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.292, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 rPC29dSPJiiL for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp3.smtp.bt.com (smtp3.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7F93A69D5 for <rsvp-dir@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from i2kc06-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.70]) by smtp3.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:39:39 +0100
Received: from cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com ([147.149.196.177]) by i2kc06-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:39:39 +0100
Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt05.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1275673178266; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:39:38 +0100
Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.215.130.87]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id o54HdaXY031030; Fri, 4 Jun 2010 18:39:36 +0100
Message-Id: <201006041739.o54HdaXY031030@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:39:40 +0100
To: Bruce Davie <bdavie@cisco.com>
From: Bob Briscoe <rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <BC6E4F60-899C-4C86-94C1-3F15D98303DD@cisco.com>
References: <BC6E4F60-899C-4C86-94C1-3F15D98303DD@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jun 2010 17:39:39.0688 (UTC) FILETIME=[E87DFA80:01CB040C]
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: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 17:40:02 -0000

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