[ssm] URGENT: draft-ietf-ssm-arch-06.txt

Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> Tue, 04 October 2005 09:13 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EMirx-0004tI-Ck; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 05:13:53 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EMirw-0004tD-5u for ssm@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 05:13:52 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA06046 for <ssm@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 05:13:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EMj0Z-0002Wh-Lp for ssm@ietf.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2005 05:22:48 -0400
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com ([171.71.177.238]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Oct 2005 02:13:42 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,172,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="663296438:sNHT25227184"
Received: from cisco.com (cypher.cisco.com [171.69.11.142]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j949Dd4V005234; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 02:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by cisco.com (8.8.8-Cisco List Logging/8.8.8) id CAA01989; Tue, 4 Oct 2005 02:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 02:13:38 -0700
From: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
To: holbrook@cs.stanford.edu, bcain@storigen.com, fenner@research.att.com, zinin@psg.com, ssm@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20051004091338.GF9249@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228
Cc: jedi@cisco.com, David Meyer <dmm@cisco.com>
Subject: [ssm] URGENT: draft-ietf-ssm-arch-06.txt
X-BeenThere: ssm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Source-Specific Multicast <ssm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ssm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm>, <mailto:ssm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ssm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ssm-bounces@ietf.org

Can somebody please tell me what needs to be done to get an SSM
architecture RFC out of that draft... like: This year ?

We've got a whole bloody broadband industry like in DSL and Cabl
where it's extremely difficult to propose and require SSM support without
having an actual IETF RFC for this still pretty badly understood model.

In addition, there is at least one further IETF draft hanging on the
normative reference.

Is there any relationship between the amount of changes / improvement
that went into this draft and it's lifetime ? Or is it rather that this
draft is hanging around waiting for someone who is not spending the time
to move it forward ? If so, can we please identify that roadblock and
get rid of it so that this draft can move forward with a little bit
accelerated speed ? 

Short of this: Can we simply define timeouts of let's say 5 years after
which drafts that have an interested user community become an RFC even
if not all bureaucracy nitpicking has been resolved ? After all, the
PIM-SM RFC2362 also had 120 known bugs when we started out redoing it
something like 5 years ago, but it's pure existance has helped to
ensure that THE INDUSTRY HAS CONTINUED TO DO ANY FORM OF PIM DURING THE
LAST 5 YEARS... *sigh* sorry for getting so loud. Just wanted to highlight
that the situation in SSM is worse than in PIM - with similar waiting
times - because in SSM there is no prior RFC whatsoever that could be
used instad of the real thing, and i really don't see the value of
indefinite postponement anymore.

Thanks
    Toerless Eckert

_______________________________________________
ssm mailing list
ssm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm