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

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sun, 10 July 2022 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 1859AC157901 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2022 02:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.78
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.876, 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 mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RleBI8zPKjL9 for <teas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Jul 2022 02:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96A97C14F613 for <teas@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Jul 2022 02:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.241] (c-8f02e353.020-236-73746f24.bbcust.telenor.se [83.227.2.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 449F6367DA9; Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:32:17 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <6c211209-f42a-549d-58e9-cbaaf8a316de@pi.nu>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 11:31:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-CA
To: Vishnu Pavan Beeram <vishnupavan@gmail.com>, Joel Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: TEAS WG <teas@ietf.org>
References: <019b01d891ef$bb4f3050$31ed90f0$@olddog.co.uk> <0fd13ba5-4905-2cca-e72d-23d51d6306ba@joelhalpern.com> <CA+YzgTtGFjjeGgKdLQM3OA9WuKe5gAmujJD5Fe59XK9FO3LCtQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YzgTtGFjjeGgKdLQM3OA9WuKe5gAmujJD5Fe59XK9FO3LCtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/fhr2Vlrb6_Ciij7p0HSYanEmMbs>
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: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 09:32:21 -0000

Adrian,

Took me some time to read, but I believe we can remove the appendices.

/Loa

On 2022-07-08 07:04, Vishnu Pavan Beeram wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 list
>>     Teas@ietf.org  <mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Teas mailing list
>     Teas@ietf.org <mailto:Teas@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Teas mailing list
> Teas@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/teas

-- 
Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64