Re: [rsvp-dir] Getting RSVP Directorate Feedback into TSVWG

Gorry Fairhurst <> Tue, 02 November 2010 09:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2872B3A68C3 for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t8z1u+XhVVgi for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C055F3A6872 for <>; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Gorry-Fairhursts-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id oA29BmLT003728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:11:49 GMT
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:11:48 +0000
From: Gorry Fairhurst <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "James M. Polk" <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Getting RSVP Directorate Feedback into TSVWG
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: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:13:51 -0000


At the most basic level, I need help and I need to see reviews posted to 
the list. At the moment, since you are personally involved in some 
drafts this leaves me very exposed and this leaves us without an "RSVP" 
Chair. I think the directorate can help fix this. We seem to be still 
working out the ways the directorate can help.

Here is what I think can be done, suggestions welcome:

1) If I were to see several sets of detailed comments, a few reviews of 
the wording and scope of sections, promises to review in the WG and 
contribute to WGLC, etc - My recommendation to the ADs would be much 
clearer. I have so far, seen one review from the directorate from Bruce 
Davie (thanks). I can post my notes to the directorate to restore 
synchronisation and see if others have more to add, if this helps.

2) I did make a list of questions that I'd like the directorate to help 
answer (David Harrington also posted a list). Answers to well-chosen 
questions would be extremely helpful in deciding whether to progress a 
draft. I would be happy to attempt to merge the list of questions and 
repost them - checking first with our ADs.

3) I didn't see much discussion on RSVP on the list in the last period, 
nor substantive "improvements" in the drafts - I can see this may mostly 
easily follow (1,2) above.

4) If the directorate/WG would like, it is possible we could formulate a 
more formal set of requirements for progression of an I-D along the 
lines you hint at below. You should not be surprised that I'd generally 
agree with what you say: 5 reviews would be great, promises that reviews 
would be provided (and NiT lists) to the WG and at WGLC would also seem 
very helpful. To me, I don't think this means you need to prove the spec 
is implementable/interoperable when it is standardised (as I recall, 
SCTP-advocates said they liked this approach, and that worked for them, 
which I liked). I'd weight heavily any interop experience and would 
attach value customer/service provider reviews and requirements. But 
personally, I'd recommend another go at (1,2,3) before we reach this 
stage (4) - the results of a formal process are of course easier to see 
and to appeal should you need, they are however likely to be binding and 

James/directorate do let me know your thoughts and we can move forward.


On 01/11/2010 23:58, James M. Polk wrote:
> Bruce
> Thanks for responding so quickly. Part of my reaction was to what the
> ADs said in Maastricht during TSVWG, that they had no input from the
> Directorate, and the discussion went downhill from there IMO. Depending
> on who you believe, even after listening to the meeting audio, there was
> - mention of the need for two independent implementations in order for
> the ADs to agree to have MULTI_TSPEC adopted as a WG item (by one AD);
> and
> - there was mention of the need for 5 full reviews of any new
> RSVP/IntServ based ID before one AD would consider recommending to TSVWG
> that they adopt this item (this by the other AD).
> With either one of the above, the bar is set quite high (in fact higher
> than I've ever experienced in the IETF).
> Additionally, the discussion of the first topic (needing two
> implementations to be considered a WG item) devolved IMO when Randy
> Stewart joined the discussion by indicating that this is what he does
> for all his SCTP IDs, therefore the practice ought to used for everything.
> No one in the WG agreed to this other than Randy, and in fact, had
> several folks stating on the mic this was out of line to ask for (Matt
> Mathis, Fred Baker, and Ken Carlberg if memory serves).
> James
> At 05:55 PM 11/1/2010, Bruce Davie wrote:
>> James,
>> I have reviewed the multiple tspec draft and I am in favor of its
>> adoption (as I think I have said before, and, IIRC, I provided details
>> as to why). I think Lixia is also on record as supporting that draft.
>> I have asked the directorate for feedback a couple of times, and Bob
>> Briscoe gave some feedback, which led to me gather more info from you
>> as to why these drafts were worthy of consideration. I have provided
>> that info to the directorate.
>> I will craft a more publicly acceptable email for the TSVWG list. But
>> I can't speak much more for the directorate than I have done here.
>> Bruce
>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:50 PM, James M. Polk wrote:
>> > All
>> >
>> > This is written as both the TSVWG chair and as an individual author
>> of several active IDs into TSVWG.
>> >
>> > As an individual, I didn't think I needed to request this, but I am
>> anyway - because I haven't received any feedback from the RSVP
>> Directorate to date, and we're 5 days away from the next IETF meeting.
>> >
>> > I am requesting that the RSVP Directorate review these two IDs
>> >
>> >
>> and
>> >
>> >
>> > Are either or both of these IDs worth the effort of the TSVWG to
>> take on a WG items (or not)?
>> >
>> > Lars freely admits that he considers IntServ to be joined with RSVP
>> wrt the TSVWG charter. We chairs are crafting text for a charter
>> update to reflect that explicitly.
>> >
>> > The MULTI_TSPEC ID has been presented at every IETF, in TSVWG, since
>> San Francisco -- and really was the reason this Directorate formed
>> (because the ADs chose to punt the ball wrt whether to allow the
>> adoption of this WG item by TSVWG). This Directorate had a BoF of
>> sorts in Anaheim, which was well attended and included a lot of
>> energy. At issue is that no one from the Directorate provided an ounce
>> of input into TSVWG for the next IETF (in Maastricht), and I - as
>> chair - haven't heard from any of you since Maastricht on either of
>> the documents listed above one way or the other.
>> >
>> > This is where I put my WG chair hat on, as ask - rather bluntly -
>> why there has been zero input into TSVWG even though the Directorate
>> charter (if you will) clearly states reviewing RSVP based IDs is the
>> purpose of the Directorate, and the fact that there are now two IDs
>> sitting in completely limbo awaiting WG input from the Directorate.
>> >
>> > I realize everyone's time here is quite busy, but these IDs need
>> feedback from those chartered to give said feedback.
>> >
>> > Please response on to this nudge on the TSVWG list.
>> >
>> > James
>> >