[rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews

Bruce Davie <bdavie@cisco.com> Wed, 30 March 2011 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <bdavie@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5EED3A6B10 for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:56:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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 mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2hg5yRci64CW for <rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D5A3A6A98 for <rsvp-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bdavie@cisco.com; l=2125; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301471874; x=1302681474; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: cc:to:mime-version; bh=apX/8dOAf+wAJKNzlVNkEQt3Gmtn7fpJVFDecXcmyHk=; b=CBsZTlS6AzoKQpjXHPcKRyCPJJTWzUhO5kmrNTnNILrePVIu2xu0+vsF kKV61gKT5huWNbM5j/mBNZG4Ci2BpW8yivVimwA4ZPJKTsZhMTdhkfo7z 9B0DhCU8/Phv50DtN1nHDeunU6yQjSMyrK1KbZTYUE9Bg1UF6uSyebD8W o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvoHALHhkk2rRDoG/2dsb2JhbACYUIx8d6BqnEyFagSNBg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,267,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="327256571"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2011 07:57:54 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpnasa1-98.cisco.com (sjc-vpnasa1-98.cisco.com []) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2U7vrk2024190; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:57:53 GMT
From: Bruce Davie <bdavie@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:57:52 -0400
Message-Id: <A9C46E7F-680F-4541-B496-5ED3FD563E6D@cisco.com>
To: rsvp-dir@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: tsvwg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews
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: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:56:17 -0000

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:


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. 


Bruce Davie