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

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Hi Toerless,
      Well, the draft is in Revised ID Needed state after IESG review.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? 
command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1300&filename=draft-ietf-ssm-arch

To my knowledge, the editors/authors have either: run out of cycles
or motivation.  I would love to see this draft finished as well.  If  
needed,
I could try and help resolve the DISCUSS comments.

Regards,
Brian

On Oct 4, 2005, at 5:13, Toerless Eckert wrote:

> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm

_______________________________________________
ssm mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ssm