Re: [Teas] Questions about the Appendixes to draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis

Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com> Fri, 08 July 2022 05:04 UTC

Return-Path: <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: teas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EED8C15A75F for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 22:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mC39t8sYMNGj for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 22:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd30.google.com (mail-io1-xd30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d30]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C996C15AB45 for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 22:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd30.google.com with SMTP id n68so2731186iod.3 for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jul 2022 22:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3HUsUxpuOHMVLqchGGeGJBNK/24kV4vf0vZc7L3WvB4=; b=ayv7obNd19CplpLbcRRCfyFeZ5yq8QaMzlK6VaNEEtr09rmJcZNGO2eEJiM5NhX4A2 x7uABojkv77xkbt3zljtVPH+Tz4Sq+IWGX33sAsQUvlMKmbmUbu23wEkRtupU5TYFEzd NCsEdjwXa/C2TYQp047SP8rv/7pFTxizAOc+Bky+SpCAP/QT8RPsJedS+Bz6lMFKYxGl CxPr7UTefgYHzGql4QhJX8StaJHOQJx1T96lFk15J4QzNjRpiDuVr/670SVTljPSVE9g BrIhb4P0C0QgHUAqibkHU8eNU/4IjM1R/r00qagSi8YedK6neE46pLPeI70Uult2Odb1 pZ6A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3HUsUxpuOHMVLqchGGeGJBNK/24kV4vf0vZc7L3WvB4=; b=Lj1CqTWwCcsdmBDEy5xw5cEeU7u08BnJEiz+aX2ey7M+7KUh8m8eY97KtV8a5pEhy0 rJNUycx536hhbx6oR8AZ08k4gtQjfFYAdP5EXnZc3EPOr8RWR6Qn0aZ4BBGc9SRgZlc3 JZl0xtQpweA6jVzfsxbPrs9mFbDAl8hdZJQlnuBi3KqiLV6kS8gYfkbtWcpzyKOwzZFU 1mYrmx7FvDOHshFpa5ZFfuJv6m5M2HOzC0lYmtj7H8TL0BAPlB9BHsse4aDjDU8GVPqA ArxRCbTidQF+w1saBQPrfVvta2jnSxhUwFv2O0F+pjR5xiWvqawJkuXtfjh9AfjSbL80 fWnA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+vEMT5/YMVWIW5t1Z4XAq2Wz173CqECCVNj1berhfwharKsNzj JT5IvbC5/0HnuBXpz1hAVjoI7ESwMRDEFA0VXUjc0ZILgakesg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sZk3EGzO+d+7UzWmcGAM7eB9KmUVdRL6Zp0IVFULpSerq869GE2twwVXDHlO1aFjcGKknQyBGRqulXxuTEkNo=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:1607:b0:33c:bd0e:5024 with SMTP id x7-20020a056638160700b0033cbd0e5024mr1097178jas.47.1657256656696; Thu, 07 Jul 2022 22:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <019b01d891ef$bb4f3050$31ed90f0$@olddog.co.uk> <0fd13ba5-4905-2cca-e72d-23d51d6306ba@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <0fd13ba5-4905-2cca-e72d-23d51d6306ba@joelhalpern.com>
From: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 10:34:05 +0530
Message-ID: <CA+YzgTtGFjjeGgKdLQM3OA9WuKe5gAmujJD5Fe59XK9FO3LCtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000052f87f05e34422e1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/3DoQpYtla04qgkvlpgKgnNAY_4w>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Questions about the Appendixes to draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis
X-BeenThere: teas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <teas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/teas/>
List-Post: <mailto:teas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>, <mailto:teas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 05:04:21 -0000

Agree with Joel -- we can delete them and move on.

Regards,
-Pavan

On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 7:49 PM Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:

> Personally, I think we can delete both appendices.  While having an
> historic record is important, the earlier RFC contains that for historic
> purposes.  I do not think that it behooves the community to try to bring
> those two sections up to date, which is what would seem to be required if
> we want to keep them in the document.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
> On 7/7/2022 6:53 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> We have just one thing remaining after working group last call…
>
>
>
> Don raised some concerns about the Appendixes to this draft and this is an
> attempt to focus the questions and possibly drive answers.
>
>
>
> Appendix A.  Historic Overview
>
>    - Should we delete or retain this Appendix?
>    - If we retain it, should we include some text indicating that it is a
>    subjective view? (If so, what text?)
>    - If we retain it, should we regard it as "History before what is in
>    the body of the text" or should we try to make the history continue towards
>    the present by including pointers back into the body text? (If so, someone
>    is going to need to do that work!)
>    - If we retain it, should we look to fill any gaps between the end of
>    the history documented in the Appendix and the start of the material in the
>    body text?
>
>
>
> Appendix B.  Overview of Traffic Engineering Related Work in Other SDOs
>
>    - Should we delete or retain this Appendix?
>    - If we retain it, should it attempt to list out other (all?) SDOs
>    that have done TE work? (If so, who will try to compile this list?)
>
>
>
> I would really appreciate any thoughts on these points and, depending on
> your answers, some (promises of) text.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing listTeas@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>