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

Adrian Farrel <> Fri, 08 July 2022 17:10 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31CACC15948C for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 10:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.822
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.822 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TS3Y5_10ZY33 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 10:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34AB5C147921 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 10:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 268H9tsE023173; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 18:09:55 +0100
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994584604B; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 18:09:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D26F46048; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 18:09:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 18:09:54 +0100 (BST)
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 268H9sds014476 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Jul 2022 18:09:54 +0100
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 18:09:54 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <>, Joel Halpern <>
Cc: TEAS WG <>
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <019b01d891ef$bb4f3050$31ed90f0$> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.5-Rev38
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.720-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--11.720-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Result: 10--11.719600-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: oHOSwQSJZWinvGCyBToTI8G0UNgaZpYqnSd2cRY8xQNWcVQdwdqmz6pa p5GN867V/KqJ8jLjH3nzsesL6k6yvR2VQwNxPgu7uLt50vtxBA5d5/m3qrxFzP/PlfQrPF266SA S+mkx1FFwJtLiiRFbD7Rp6vXDPO87gzBj9A6wt2K/mux8PsfamZ03C0fPk8xKhg/Tt7otYdg/PJ 8p+RzsAZH5sL/BJ2l4CpbS1H1v6SmwcHwzEtk5ycQ4mpKyfkqZdU2gXPGZpufQ7/SkjInfUS+7W VVxkoSgqUOjBkkLxgG2kdECpOqtDctmybG2/RaqqNtC2YatSInCXeHJwJcT9i99T+uJIleRLgzL mtYGleI3puqw1+37q71cfVYqHqTNYVRIfIQwLJeOtWfhyZ77DnTya+tynkDEgWr1O7ZY9TGETMj f6aTOJzsjLjEwO02eFHwQ6InhCa+qN3oK3ehXDQcbMHjYNxGhhZApJAdFDDabKItl61J/ybLn+0 Vm71LcOAawE8JvIaID/dHyT/Xh7Q==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Questions about the Appendixes to draft-ietf-teas-rfc3272bis
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 17:10:05 -0000

This is looking promising, thank to all responders. 

I'll wait until Sunday night or Monday to see if there are any different opinions.

On 08/07/2022 06:04 Vishnu Pavan Beeram <> wrote:

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


On Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 7:49 PM Joel Halpern <> 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.



On 7/7/2022 6:53 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:



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.




Teas mailing list" rel="noopener nofollow">
Teas mailing list" rel="noopener nofollow">