Re: [Tsvwg] UDP-Lite MIB - ready?

"James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> Mon, 11 June 2007 18:46 UTC

Return-path: <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HxouZ-0002EL-SX; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:46:43 -0400
Received: from tsvwg by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HxouX-0002EE-Vv for tsvwg-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:46:41 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HxouX-0002E6-MI for tsvwg@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:46:41 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HxouX-0004A1-C1 for tsvwg@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:46:41 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Jun 2007 11:46:41 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,409,1175497200"; d="scan'208"; a="378462543:sNHT80132586"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l5BIkeOR020074; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:46:40 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l5BIkE2Q015200; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:46:40 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:46:28 -0700
Received: from jmpolk-wxp.cisco.com ([10.21.124.106]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:46:27 -0700
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:46:22 -0500
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
From: "James M. Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] UDP-Lite MIB - ready?
In-Reply-To: <E24B92DB-1A96-463E-864C-B9D8199913C6@nokia.com>
References: <465C3538.8060707@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <E24B92DB-1A96-463E-864C-B9D8199913C6@nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-ID: <XFE-SJC-212FR0rmTIV0000237d@xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jun 2007 18:46:27.0648 (UTC) FILETIME=[D1926400:01C7AC58]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1491; t=1181587600; x=1182451600; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22James=20M.=20Polk=22=20<jmpolk@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Tsvwg]=20UDP-Lite=20MIB=20-=20ready? |Sender:=20; bh=aN+d/BlzmeN+yE48doEXD3+rUQBbbzLJ3SX47wd/+8U=; b=vqIh77scINp5lH4myAL7EmcMrH2PJofNH+8lztoVMWdgyZLmMEsU7In39qQ/695wSt1mfn1e psM2/tYAD2gdxM3JcWQARP3YGHJZnjTtTvXlYoRCqP2unqW6UGHEd9gu;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=jmpolk@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Cc: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org

At 09:30 AM 5/31/2007, Lars Eggert wrote:
>On 2007-5-29, at 17:14, ext Gorry Fairhurst wrote:
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-renker-tsvwg-udplite- mib-02.txt
>>
>>We think this document is ready to be adopted as a WG document.
>
>The chairs would like to echo this request and start a consensus call
>for WG adoption. Please send comments by June 15.
>
>(My personal opinion is that we should take this on. UDP-Lite is one
>of our transport protocols, and we have some obligation to make sure
>it can be managed as part of the overall IETF management framework.)

(with my chair hat on)
I'd like to ping the WG about adopting this ID as a WG item.  Anyone 
*not* wanting this ID to become a WG item, please comment to the list 
by this Friday, June 15th.

(with my chair hat off)
I think this effort is a good thing to have, even if not everyone on 
this list is interested.  That's a reality in this WG, that it is a 
group of fairly individual projects (or protocols), and not one 
consensus drive protocol or mechanism (like other WGs enjoy).  That 
said, and as Lars points out, Transport protocols are the charter of 
this WG, and at least some in this WG should work to ensure a 
modification to an existing transport protocol or the creation of a 
new transport protocol is done with consistency within the IETF, with 
the opportunity for peer review by other community members of similar 
focus.  I believe this is one such case.


>Lars