Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews

Lou Berger <> Wed, 30 March 2011 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C04523A68F8 for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:45:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.081
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BhOiD4bkDB0U for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:45:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 93DC83A6982 for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:45:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 14803 invoked by uid 0); 30 Mar 2011 12:47:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with SMTP; 30 Mar 2011 12:47:31 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default;; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=ptsxVWKOut8KAC4tQUmXLsR+xhHlnUS8glSF4MV64wJr3A8SzkO0wsTDcs01ZkCza+iARDlnLmiEALxVFMvt6HapYxjiz/Sad/94EQLLGTZ+ONCGboJpvl6hSFDnf7uJ;
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1Q4uo7-0004Va-8p; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:47:31 -0600
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:47:26 +0200
From: Lou Berger <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Davie <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {} {sentby:smtp auth authed with}
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews
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, 30 Mar 2011 12:45:54 -0000

	First let me say that review is goodness and I have no issues with
providing input on the suitability for *acceptance* as a WG document
based on technical review.  But I'm left with a couple of questions:

1) It sounds like you are expecting a non-technical / market review of
the drafts by the rsvp-dir.  Is this correct?

2) What work / input do you expect from the WG before a LC is issued for
a document that has gone through the described process?

Much thanks,

On 3/30/2011 9:57 AM, Bruce Davie wrote:
> I met with the TSV ADs on Monday and we talked about how we might make more progress with the RSVP-related drafts that are coming through TSVWG. As you know, the directorate has not to date produced many reviews of the drafts, and the ADs really would like to see more reviews, and promises to review mature drafts, in order to feel confident that the drafts are worth the time and attention of the WG. So, first of all, I'd like to respectfully ask the Directorate members to step up and commit to reviewing these drafts. The 2 drafts that need attention right now are:
> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06.txt
> draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02.txt
> Many of you have spoken in favor of the former, but AFAIK, only Lou and I have actually provided detailed reviews. Could I ask for one or two more reviewers? Even a promise of a review would be nice.
> For the record, I will also review the second draft.
> To spread the load around, we should be trying to find people outside the directorate who can do reviews. I have asked Ken Carlberg; can any of you think of, or find, others who might do reviews? If we want to keep RSVP standards in the IETF, we really need a stable of reviewers.
> Finally, David Harrington asked me to draw up some review guidelines, so here is my attempt to do that.
> A review should address why (or whether) the draft warrants the attention of TSVWG. That justification should cover the following points to the extent possible:
> - What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is the draft trying to solve?
> - What class of application will benefit if the draft becomes a standard?
> - Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better.
> - What new capability will we have if this draft becomes a standard?
> - What community of users will benefit from this work?
> In addition, the review should sanity-check the draft for technical correctness in terms of its relationship to the RSVP and Intserv specifications. 
> Thanks.
> Bruce Davie
> _______________________________________________
> rsvp-dir mailing list