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

[Bruce Davie <[e-mail]>]

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
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-05.txt and
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-01.txt
> 
> 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
>