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

Bob Briscoe <> Mon, 07 June 2010 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBCD3A6A1B for <>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.483
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QrT4GZ0I6JEv for <>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F2128C266 for <>; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 7 Jun 2010 18:29:48 +0100
Received: from ([]) by with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 7 Jun 2010 18:29:47 +0100
Received: From ([]) by (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1275931786656; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 18:29:46 +0100
Received: from ([]) by (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id o57HTkCC015181; Mon, 7 Jun 2010 18:29:46 +0100
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:29:50 +0100
To: Bruce Davie <>
From: Bob Briscoe <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2010 17:29:47.0974 (UTC) FILETIME=[070AD660:01CB0667]
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Our first work items for RSVP Directorate
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: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:51:41 -0000


Perhaps there's a misunderstanding...

Yes, I'm sure the authors want them to be WG drafts. And I'm sure the 
drafts are technically interesting enough.

But I'm asking for the motivations from the authors that justifies 
why they think each draft is suitable to take IETF time as a WG draft 
(and our directorate reviewing time).

In your original email, you gave nice outlines of *what* each draft 
is about, and we've all seen the presentations. But none of the 
presentations or the nice text capsules answer questions like:

- This is needed for new applications w & x that are becoming 
important in the defence and the enterprise sectors
- and yes, another way to do it is already standardised, but this new 
approach saves y amount of messages compared to approach z that we 
already have,
- and n organisations/customers have said they would be interested in 
this being standardised and will contribute reviews.
- or we admit no-one has said they would be interested, but it will 
provide a new fundamental capability that will enable p,q and r that 
people would not even be able to imagine they might want unless we 
standardse it.

ie, stuff specific to each doc, that satisfies the concerns that led 
to the creation of this directorate in the first place.


At 18:48 04/06/2010, Bruce Davie wrote:
>  The RSVP directorate will not, of course, decide the fate of these 
> documents. Our job is to review documents and advise the TSV ADs 
> and TSVWG chairs. I'm just trying to jump start that process, so 
> that when the authors show up at TSVWG, (a) the chairs will be able 
> to say whether it's even worth the time of the WG to hear a 
> presentation on the draft (b) there will be at least a couple of 
> people in the audience who have read the drafts.
>  For the record, all 3 of the drafts mentioned below were presented 
> at IETF 76. The authors have asked that they be taken on as TSVWG items.
>On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design

Bob Briscoe,                                BT Innovate & Design