Re: [Teas] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-teas-gmpls-scsi

[Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

I like the way you cut threads, let me see if I can be as efficient as you've been.

> > How about:
> >
> > "The ISCD is defined in [RFC4203] and [RFC5307]. It can include a
> > Generalized SCSI when advertising technologies whose Switching
> > Capability definition reference this document.  The corollary of this
> > is that the  Generalized SCSI MUST NOT be used for ISCDs of
> > technologies whose Switching Capability definition do not reference this
> document."
> 
> Yes.

Actually I realized that references to RFC4203 and RFC5307 are already in the intro. I dropped the first line.
 
> > > Will you not pre-populate the registry with the TLVs from one of
> > > 7138 and 7688? 
[snip]
> Makes me wonder whether there are any switching types left to make use of
> this document :-Z

Yours is a good point (even if I'm confident new wonderful switching types will pop up between now and my retirement). I would like to get this document done without any allocation so that value 1 can be allocated for the Availability TLV. 
In order to have other existing switching types use this TLV (and be backward compatible) we need duplicate the switching types for which we want to allow it. If this makes sense and someone is interested in doing it we can welcome new contributions.

[snip]
> > For me it's ok to have a single range.
> 
> Then let's do it and you don't even need to understand my point to make me
> happy ;-)
> 
OK, done.

[snip]
> I recall some debate as that went through, but I cannot recall why I didn't
> argue then. Probably I was too old (actually, I raised the issue as AD shortly
> after WG adoption, but seem to have not picked it up as an individual at WG
> last call).
> Looks like the IESG also had a go at that text for some reason.
> Looks like before that your AD (Deborah) was worried about the overlap.
> 
> Anyway, I probably don't care, but I don't see why Specification Required isn't
> enough. Go have a look at 5226.

RFC7892 was needed because the allocation policy was Standards Action and we wanted to allocate a code point for and Informational document.
Re-reading RFC5225 I guess you're right, since Specification Required implies Expert Review. From my understanding it also includes Standard Tracks documents.
Designated Experts do not necessarily need to be identified in the draft. When/if the draft will reach the IANA they will ask Deborah who to appoint and she could appoint the TEAS chairs at that point.

Hence, yes I agree with you, I just used Specification Required and removed the DE appointment. 

Thanks a lot once again
Daniele