Re: [Teas] I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-05.txt

Adrian Farrel <> Mon, 23 November 2020 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EBA73A0A4F for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:44:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.017
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.017 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O3eKugT7nMQu for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:44:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E8CE3A0A4E for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 08:44:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0ANGinZa010221 for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:44:49 GMT
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2D4B22042 for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:44:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B645722048 for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:44:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 0ANGilwp024495 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:44:48 GMT
Reply-To: <>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:44:46 -0000
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <053b01d6c1b7$f47f07b0$dd7d1710$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGABigXh8YuYobFAxmU6wJ7XIcjeqqDYDtg
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--6.183-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--6.183-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--6.182500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: H0/uSqZo4D5or4mPA3EMtnFPUrVDm6jtyeUl7aCTy8hVIo+Xoohp7O9Y Jb+A/hFw+scETmIe7q4TXOtSVUj2Np9vFrcDXJOn/1o5N8M2O2UX2zxRNhh61UvEK4FMJdoqgA1 KZEybB0mhfATZkgM/ugLk/TX6VQBSCOq2YJZTaJOwWQIt565825bFbuUKHUSYfkiy7TTogYa2pt oC//eQZDhGux9ecy5lViGW2wTFmuVEynyqvB6s3QxxIOrYW0TsGbJMFqqIm9wowpDqBFN+r1pq2 K/Emlk1R0mM+7UivFrhM58Wu4vJiBiDllt17Pb0rHi4Tq/VwTpDmn7kzuSuKVhs8uimgHNCcsT5 B7dOZfIXnxudmbh7Uxu9cXIYOQt2Py1vOUgRZKL54qsfCgZX0ylayzmQ9QV0X1Ahz57P/j7c1ac WhaWawn5TCuLn/5TdG0bWz82MgHyBOFxdv6UviXCO70QAsBdCYu1jAfiXSs6iaTz7D2d0TIc4Cx 6gjMqoctgtwNo0ZAOUETcIsBzdJ3iDpIkYweVAvHKClHGjjr1TbzA1C0+Yc1qEAQv2j5Nb9xu1Z b5VzUtag8dnetN8+GivLll7h+HdTX7PJ/OU3vL+xOhjarOnHtcWNSgE7GQasOzOncrmCoP3FLeZ XNZS4JcYTwlejO3N7/5MWIielxwkl92aLuGVabAD0uoueVOx9D36XHaT1ibXDLDeqm/6R5RMZUC EHkRt
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-05.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Traffic Engineering Architecture and Signaling working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 16:44:54 -0000

Here we go, then. -05 completes my scrub of the text.

It got a little shorter without losing too much, I think.

The missing sections are marked TBD. I took the liberty of inserting some
names for people who promised text (Boris, Dhruv, Kiran, Jeff).

Apart from that what is needed is review:
- what is wrong?
- what could be clearer?
- what is missing?
- what could safely be left out?

I am particularly keen to cut text. We've added quite a bit of material for
new techniques and technologies, and although we also cut and rationalised,
we currently stand at 74 pages compared with the 71 pages of RFC 3272.

We could consider whether the appendixes really need to be kept.


-----Original Message-----
From: Teas <> On Behalf Of
Sent: 23 November 2020 16:27
Subject: [Teas] I-D Action: draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-05.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
This draft is a work item of the Traffic Engineering Architecture and
Signaling WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Overview and Principles of Internet Traffic
        Author          : Adrian Farrel
	Filename        : draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis-05.txt
	Pages           : 74
	Date            : 2020-11-23

   This document describes the principles of traffic engineering (TE) in
   the Internet.  The document is intended to promote better
   understanding of the issues surrounding traffic engineering in IP
   networks and the networks that support IP networking, and to provide
   a common basis for the development of traffic engineering
   capabilities for the Internet.  The principles, architectures, and
   methodologies for performance evaluation and performance optimization
   of operational networks are also discussed.

   This work was first published as RFC 3272 in May 2002.  This document
   obsoletes RFC 3272 by making a complete update to bring the text in
   line with best current practices for Internet traffic engineering and
   to include references to the latest relevant work in the IETF.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

There are also htmlized versions available at:

A diff from the previous version is available at:

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

Teas mailing list