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

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 07 July 2022 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 DA014C15CF47 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 03:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.926
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.926 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ekNPfOUR_9RS for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 03:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta8.iomartmail.com (mta8.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9719FC15CF41 for <teas@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 03:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (vs3.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.124]) by mta8.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 267Ar3YS006680; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:53:03 +0100
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84CF24604A; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:53:03 +0100 (BST)
Received: from vs3.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D314604C; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:53:03 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs3.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:53:03 +0100 (BST)
Received: from LAPTOPK7AS653V (93.197.bbplus.pte-ag1.dyn.plus.net [81.174.197.93] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 267Ar2CB026806 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Jul 2022 11:53:03 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'TEAS WG' <teas@ietf.org>
Cc: 'Don Fedyk' <dfedyk@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 11:53:02 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
Message-ID: <019b01d891ef$bb4f3050$31ed90f0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_019C_01D891F8.1D140D80"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-gb
Thread-Index: AdiR7nzP+p5wWs5WQ9uGPVEZndr9Fw==
X-Originating-IP: 81.174.197.93
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.0.1002-27000.007
X-TM-AS-Result: No--14.270-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--14.270-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.1.0.2090-9.0.1002-27000.007
X-TMASE-Result: 10--14.269500-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: mW99dfI1akYOwAmmWH5kBAzrPeIO/OIHNi8L88UV9IC2duf1KYOL/K6A 9fw2h5ZacNc4kvlfJCtR3GqIooUDOPHiUnXR5sk6F+qQpCWTUjnLBdK2mpaYlmz4cUPsHZjp199 HM+/lwoM42CtK2LVdNbVusIDkny6yh3+CL8/F/s2iWA3lxU01E/NkoMDX+kiutwi3bXRtaAif7y 5OBAioaDba6gSbbjl+iONMOkcrBiaHO/kG/PtN6fx0ykrbAxjCv3d9ewcMHQcWzPTbxO7R+vdIm 8S+G8+gLsvndq11AZKbVVXilP6Qq/CDFvXZFmYyYeSLiGsUzvkIJ2rqTcuYdpwuBAj6wuhIbNNG UMZTc/NyJu0XD2DXErMBGPgr91doWaV6X+ncQPyaYPCDiHsB0CkDYTG6KmZazYl5gzwbNNno2gO EwxghpxJbZkwWA5HYd/6p81sb+WA+KbeGe6bo/Q6w00GeWBFafS0Ip2eEHnyvXSmSdlcYmsnjLT A/UDoAHwAqApZ40aHQqQhSw0x2VDsAVzN+Ov/slhIIiSCs1mt7+HFkSciYyNqQ6AFTPaVY6+Kbs EeSpZqW6kR+IjngXA==
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/f_tHk_-apARgj9vdBa5yTtTHEg4>
Subject: [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: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 10:53:06 -0000

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