From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri Mar 1 01:45:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED9021F8726 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 01:45:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3zQLqriAC12A for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 01:45:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E76D521F873D for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 01:45:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r219jO2Z024493; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:45:24 GMT Received: from 950129200 (089144192013.atnat0001.highway.a1.net [89.144.192.13]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r219jLDW024444 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:45:23 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Abdussalam Baryun'" , References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 09:45:23 -0000 Message-ID: <007801ce1661$8077b290$816717b0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJCRwp3JJZ3hvZy13AaybP3ZdOLTpeoMu4g Content-Language: en-gb X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 09:45:27 -0000 Hi Abdussalam, As Thomas notes, 6lowpan is in the INT Area. The DFF I-D has received sponsorship as an individual I-D from one of the INT ADs. Although the I-D did not receive much attention in the routing area as it was developed, it was flagged to MANET and ROLL during IETF last call to give people a chance to comment and, if necessary observe important impact on routing systems. During IETF last call I commissioned a review from a member of the Routing Directorate. This review along with other last call review comments (such as yours) have led the editor of the document to say that a new revision is needed and will be posted soon (probably during IETF week). As a result, the IESG's evaluation of the document has been deferred until a date toward the end of March. The Routing ADs have yet to perform their evaluation of the document and would be happy to hear from anyone who has concerns about the impact of the work on routing. A more abstract question might be: suppose a routing AD decided to individually sponsor a document in this way, how would the decision be recorded? The answer would be "in the data tracker for the draft concerned". Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion- > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun > Sent: 28 February 2013 22:11 > To: routing-discussion@ietf.org > Subject: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area > > Hi Folks, > > I have a question regarding the WG under the Routing Area, > > There was one protocol DFF sent to IESG and mentioned that there was > no WG that relates to it, which I think it was 6Lowpan. I got a > respond that this WG may not accept new drafts. Please advise why? and > When/where was the decision made, or how to track such decision in the > Routing Area? > > AB > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Fri Mar 1 02:40:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 930FA21F84E2 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 02:40:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MVY+afbQYiHn for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 02:40:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com [209.85.220.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B3221F84C1 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 02:40:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id kp14so1737137pab.33 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 02:40:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=D/+59m6erWx7uGDwRJAzW3R5BNkgAQg7Cwuy9TfOcGU=; b=n3u0swSaUPRQy3eVAPoExanCGwDjYBvunL9dUI00zY2gC7wsxDNXMYWPrlMZVcoA7L chTzYVy7hoNZcyRN4Zgwspj2L11+tZ4PJWu+MBIy9pRurYt3BtAt7h5BD9VqazZkuLpy kyMBqBLiVnoJZC2tkJnxdqLzKf10YHXnHj0kXpO5y9ZNd+I+Aw86pBJzImyaayF6KVvg Tvgtxvjzuyb3bwSYzcMX2NfxdyLS4uaxNNOJGG8DZwtOGQU/AiMTeYqPPY5JrbCuSKwI dPsBf4uQcLOwkHKlgz6O9VpjlpQbWDZA3PaKLeAoe1rmcnGYYYXMUg5ngb0bjpBmAtn/ rbkA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.220.227 with SMTP id pz3mr17780165pac.190.1362134412484; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 02:40:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.33.132 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 02:40:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <007801ce1661$8077b290$816717b0$@olddog.co.uk> References: <007801ce1661$8077b290$816717b0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:40:12 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area From: Abdussalam Baryun To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:40:13 -0000 Hi Adrian, I tried to find/comment using the tracker for individual drafts related to routing area but wasn't able, is it only for WG drafts, or there is away I don't know, AB On 3/1/13, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi Abdussalam, > > As Thomas notes, 6lowpan is in the INT Area. > The DFF I-D has received sponsorship as an individual I-D from one of the > INT > ADs. > Although the I-D did not receive much attention in the routing area as it > was > developed, it was flagged to MANET and ROLL during IETF last call to give > people > a chance to comment and, if necessary observe important impact on routing > systems. > During IETF last call I commissioned a review from a member of the Routing > Directorate. This review along with other last call review comments (such > as > yours) have led the editor of the document to say that a new revision is > needed > and will be posted soon (probably during IETF week). As a result, the > IESG's > evaluation of the document has been deferred until a date toward the end of > March. > The Routing ADs have yet to perform their evaluation of the document and > would > be happy to hear from anyone who has concerns about the impact of the work > on > routing. > > A more abstract question might be: suppose a routing AD decided to > individually > sponsor a document in this way, how would the decision be recorded? The > answer > would be "in the data tracker for the draft concerned". > > Cheers, > Adrian > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion- >> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun >> Sent: 28 February 2013 22:11 >> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org >> Subject: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area >> >> Hi Folks, >> >> I have a question regarding the WG under the Routing Area, >> >> There was one protocol DFF sent to IESG and mentioned that there was >> no WG that relates to it, which I think it was 6Lowpan. I got a >> respond that this WG may not accept new drafts. Please advise why? and >> When/where was the decision made, or how to track such decision in the >> Routing Area? >> >> AB >> _______________________________________________ >> routing-discussion mailing list >> routing-discussion@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > > From adrian@olddog.co.uk Fri Mar 1 03:32:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F52621F8A89 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:32:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.594 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GeyNIoXQl3y4 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:32:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313F521F8A85 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:32:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r21BWBl2019385; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:32:11 GMT Received: from 950129200 (089144192049.atnat0001.highway.a1.net [89.144.192.49]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r21BW9wf019369 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:32:11 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Abdussalam Baryun'" References: <007801ce1661$8077b290$816717b0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:32:10 -0000 Message-ID: <009a01ce1670$6bab26d0$43017470$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJCRwp3JJZ3hvZy13AaybP3ZdOLTgC7j1/WAW0ge5mXlw0sUA== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:32:15 -0000 which draft are you asking about? > -----Original Message----- > From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@gmail.com] > Sent: 01 March 2013 10:40 > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org > Subject: Re: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area > > Hi Adrian, > > I tried to find/comment using the tracker for individual drafts > related to routing area but wasn't able, is it only for WG drafts, or > there is away I don't know, > > AB > > On 3/1/13, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi Abdussalam, > > > > As Thomas notes, 6lowpan is in the INT Area. > > The DFF I-D has received sponsorship as an individual I-D from one of the > > INT > > ADs. > > Although the I-D did not receive much attention in the routing area as it > > was > > developed, it was flagged to MANET and ROLL during IETF last call to give > > people > > a chance to comment and, if necessary observe important impact on routing > > systems. > > During IETF last call I commissioned a review from a member of the Routing > > Directorate. This review along with other last call review comments (such > > as > > yours) have led the editor of the document to say that a new revision is > > needed > > and will be posted soon (probably during IETF week). As a result, the > > IESG's > > evaluation of the document has been deferred until a date toward the end of > > March. > > The Routing ADs have yet to perform their evaluation of the document and > > would > > be happy to hear from anyone who has concerns about the impact of the work > > on > > routing. > > > > A more abstract question might be: suppose a routing AD decided to > > individually > > sponsor a document in this way, how would the decision be recorded? The > > answer > > would be "in the data tracker for the draft concerned". > > > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion- > >> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun > >> Sent: 28 February 2013 22:11 > >> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org > >> Subject: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area > >> > >> Hi Folks, > >> > >> I have a question regarding the WG under the Routing Area, > >> > >> There was one protocol DFF sent to IESG and mentioned that there was > >> no WG that relates to it, which I think it was 6Lowpan. I got a > >> respond that this WG may not accept new drafts. Please advise why? and > >> When/where was the decision made, or how to track such decision in the > >> Routing Area? > >> > >> AB > >> _______________________________________________ > >> routing-discussion mailing list > >> routing-discussion@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > > > > From stbryant@cisco.com Fri Mar 1 03:57:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD6D21F883B for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:57:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GNMaMgUnaRNb for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:57:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C29121F8833 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 03:57:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8737; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362139037; x=1363348637; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=HTk1lxw6X2RVWd1oHjJY4VC/zaWg6oeSUMTH+FgSBMk=; b=c8Gf9b6g5DyHQQkBZhl8R3DPj9CFvaz5R4LBwQMY/CYiu1fFjXy3uHjm Svna4RCIpXpJsbjdhCRuDgKVVxh0HM5q0GjDgvN4y/4csEayh/nNT8teZ CiIDWWtfWQ6ySO9R1GMcorKeaZwn7M6BMJg0nyoyOOfUbjbJBziEdZ+OV w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnEFAO6WMFGQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABFjCqkPYkmAYglfhZzgh8BAQEEAQEBawoBDAQLEQQBAQEJFggHCQMCAQIBFR8JCAYNAQUCAQGIDwzAf45yFQILBwYDgzcDlkOBHo9Ngwg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,761,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="12155338" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2013 11:57:16 +0000 Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21BvFWQ024924 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:57:16 GMT Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id r21BvFP3012520; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:57:15 GMT Message-ID: <5130979B.3050406@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:57:15 +0000 From: Stewart Bryant User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Abdussalam Baryun Subject: Re: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area References: <007801ce1661$8077b290$816717b0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040201000505070301070403" Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk, routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 11:57:19 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040201000505070301070403 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit How about http://datatracker.ietf.org/ document search on the left - type in dff Takes you to http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=dff&activeDrafts=on&rfcs=on click on draft-cardenas-dff-09 http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/ Now what is it you want to know about the draft? Stewart On 01/03/2013 10:40, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > I tried to find/comment using the tracker for individual drafts > related to routing area but wasn't able, is it only for WG drafts, or > there is away I don't know, > > AB > > On 3/1/13, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> Hi Abdussalam, >> >> As Thomas notes, 6lowpan is in the INT Area. >> The DFF I-D has received sponsorship as an individual I-D from one of the >> INT >> ADs. >> Although the I-D did not receive much attention in the routing area as it >> was >> developed, it was flagged to MANET and ROLL during IETF last call to give >> people >> a chance to comment and, if necessary observe important impact on routing >> systems. >> During IETF last call I commissioned a review from a member of the Routing >> Directorate. This review along with other last call review comments (such >> as >> yours) have led the editor of the document to say that a new revision is >> needed >> and will be posted soon (probably during IETF week). As a result, the >> IESG's >> evaluation of the document has been deferred until a date toward the end of >> March. >> The Routing ADs have yet to perform their evaluation of the document and >> would >> be happy to hear from anyone who has concerns about the impact of the work >> on >> routing. >> >> A more abstract question might be: suppose a routing AD decided to >> individually >> sponsor a document in this way, how would the decision be recorded? The >> answer >> would be "in the data tracker for the draft concerned". >> >> Cheers, >> Adrian >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion- >>> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun >>> Sent: 28 February 2013 22:11 >>> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org >>> Subject: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area >>> >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> I have a question regarding the WG under the Routing Area, >>> >>> There was one protocol DFF sent to IESG and mentioned that there was >>> no WG that relates to it, which I think it was 6Lowpan. I got a >>> respond that this WG may not accept new drafts. Please advise why? and >>> When/where was the decision made, or how to track such decision in the >>> Routing Area? >>> >>> AB >>> _______________________________________________ >>> routing-discussion mailing list >>> routing-discussion@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion >> > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > . > -- For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html --------------040201000505070301070403 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
How about

http://datatracker.ietf.org/

document search on the left - type in dff

Takes you to

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=dff&activeDrafts=on&rfcs=on

click on draft-cardenas-dff-09

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/

Now what is it you want to know about the draft?

Stewart


On 01/03/2013 10:40, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Hi Adrian,

I tried to find/comment using the tracker for individual drafts
related to routing area but wasn't able, is it only for WG drafts, or
there is away I don't know,

AB

On 3/1/13, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

Hi Abdussalam,

As Thomas notes, 6lowpan is in the INT Area.
The DFF I-D has received sponsorship as an individual I-D from one of the
INT
ADs.
Although the I-D did not receive much attention in the routing area as it
was
developed, it was flagged to MANET and ROLL during IETF last call to give
people
a chance to comment and, if necessary observe important impact on routing
systems.
During IETF last call I commissioned a review from a member of the Routing
Directorate. This review along with other last call review comments (such
as
yours) have led the editor of the document to say that a new revision is
needed
and will be posted soon (probably during IETF week). As a result, the
IESG's
evaluation of the document has been deferred until a date toward the end of
March.
The Routing ADs have yet to perform their evaluation of the document and
would
be happy to hear from anyone who has concerns about the impact of the work
on
routing.

A more abstract question might be: suppose a routing AD decided to
individually
sponsor a document in this way, how would the decision be recorded? The
answer
would be "in the data tracker for the draft concerned".

Cheers,
Adrian


-----Original Message-----
From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion-
bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun
Sent: 28 February 2013 22:11
To: routing-discussion@ietf.org
Subject: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area

Hi Folks,

I have a question regarding the WG under the Routing Area,

There was one protocol DFF sent to IESG and mentioned that there was
no WG that relates to it, which I think it was 6Lowpan. I got a
respond that this WG may not accept new drafts. Please advise why? and
When/where was the decision made, or how to track such decision in the
Routing Area?

AB
_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion



_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
.




-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
--------------040201000505070301070403-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Fri Mar 1 23:53:56 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377BC21F90CD for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:53:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LMdP3K6HR86R for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:53:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pb0-f51.google.com (mail-pb0-f51.google.com [209.85.160.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973A621F90CC for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:53:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id un15so2167735pbc.24 for ; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 23:53:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=v8qf1rMlZjTKsEt1Co9uvFd9qPO7tB7/qlr4mh2ocUg=; b=TXJ5hpNcqGaviz7oDrL8b1jd7tBK8MtZaM20IhkhAg2XRpwKbY/RomESVFl8f/B/b6 KQe3L2uR3nqvvl3VpLsoA8g9yOOHrHIq9Cewx/WnVQm3O8Puj0CpmQ193Ukp/Lj0nVrp 1Hb5al1gAzofbEz9dylgpa9xa6ZQcPM/gPHOswvBDcjunhDtOFrtF/MWd7XScnvemXZD dN6HTBgXceI4ySrx02fbBtTJzunZI5mOqyGBtapXaXAW0rkQshZSF6vzSBp5DN3CMzs0 wrOn7r6I7tzT7a+cz7JVVMLi+qVxj70HlTxY4bjOEktpzfMKEv3bmEMDYib/bETiGzP3 JXvA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.196.1 with SMTP id ii1mr9684801pbc.93.1362210834368; Fri, 01 Mar 2013 23:53:54 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.33.132 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 23:53:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5130979B.3050406@cisco.com> References: <007801ce1661$8077b290$816717b0$@olddog.co.uk> <5130979B.3050406@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 08:53:54 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area From: Abdussalam Baryun To: stbryant@cisco.com, adrian@olddog.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 07:53:56 -0000 Hi Stewart and Adrian, Yes it was the DFF draft, as example wanted to see its reflect/affect in routing area, or any individual draft related/maybe-related to Routing Area. From your guide below I already understood before but not able to track work per area-drafts, I track work per draft-name, but where are decisions of editors and management related to area. However, more important to track decisions in the Area. For example, how can I see where the individual draft editors ask for recognition from AD, then the AD agree/disagree, then may negotiate with other areas or with WGs, or with IETF participants. The history in the track doesn't show the effort of asking from editors to WGs or Areas only shows AD adopted. We got a post from that AD in last call stage which is late. This reminds me of a last call draft edited by one AD saying there is importance of cross areas and a need decision structure for IESG, but her I note how can I as participant to track such drafts related to my area works (e.g. one participant posted in routing area that DFF draft may affect a WG) to make structure for my decisions. In conclusion, I don't want to get notice (decision related) in late stage that there is an individual draft that may affect my WG/Area and I should review and decide within 2 weeks while that draft was working inside the same organisation for long (are we following the IETF vision in our work flow?). I propose a Last Call Area which should be not less than 3 months. So if that AD adopts and feels the draft affects/related to some areas he/she SHOULD announce the Area Last Call. just my thoughts and reflection to inputs in IETF routing area, AB On 3/1/13, Stewart Bryant wrote: > How about > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ > > document search on the left - type in dff > > Takes you to > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=dff&activeDrafts=on&rfcs=on > > click on draft-cardenas-dff-09 > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/ > > Now what is it you want to know about the draft? > > Stewart > > > On 01/03/2013 10:40, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> Hi Adrian, >> >> I tried to find/comment using the tracker for individual drafts >> related to routing area but wasn't able, is it only for WG drafts, or >> there is away I don't know, >> >> AB >> >> On 3/1/13, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>> Hi Abdussalam, >>> >>> As Thomas notes, 6lowpan is in the INT Area. >>> The DFF I-D has received sponsorship as an individual I-D from one of >>> the >>> INT >>> ADs. >>> Although the I-D did not receive much attention in the routing area as >>> it >>> was >>> developed, it was flagged to MANET and ROLL during IETF last call to >>> give >>> people >>> a chance to comment and, if necessary observe important impact on >>> routing >>> systems. >>> During IETF last call I commissioned a review from a member of the >>> Routing >>> Directorate. This review along with other last call review comments >>> (such >>> as >>> yours) have led the editor of the document to say that a new revision is >>> needed >>> and will be posted soon (probably during IETF week). As a result, the >>> IESG's >>> evaluation of the document has been deferred until a date toward the end >>> of >>> March. >>> The Routing ADs have yet to perform their evaluation of the document and >>> would >>> be happy to hear from anyone who has concerns about the impact of the >>> work >>> on >>> routing. >>> >>> A more abstract question might be: suppose a routing AD decided to >>> individually >>> sponsor a document in this way, how would the decision be recorded? The >>> answer >>> would be "in the data tracker for the draft concerned". >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Adrian >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion- >>>> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun >>>> Sent: 28 February 2013 22:11 >>>> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org >>>> Subject: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area >>>> >>>> Hi Folks, >>>> >>>> I have a question regarding the WG under the Routing Area, >>>> >>>> There was one protocol DFF sent to IESG and mentioned that there was >>>> no WG that relates to it, which I think it was 6Lowpan. I got a >>>> respond that this WG may not accept new drafts. Please advise why? and >>>> When/where was the decision made, or how to track such decision in the >>>> Routing Area? >>>> >>>> AB >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> routing-discussion mailing list >>>> routing-discussion@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> routing-discussion mailing list >> routing-discussion@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion >> . >> > > > -- > For corporate legal information go to: > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html > > From stbryant@cisco.com Sat Mar 2 01:48:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6058D21F90DA for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 01:48:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74tVLg+yCWfw for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 01:48:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3E521F90C1 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 01:48:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5757; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362217713; x=1363427313; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=kwTNGXm5EpKJk52lrJRq+Dm7rtNpKhIYlvm6BW59tnk=; b=f+U3KasNe0JOPyMzJbSgHEhwPc9wBj/jZygs3kpDgBnWNQC4yRq8wyFf 9sTVBp72+qxl9m1FQ3fbIMAFYHZESwywykedDGJEAr26IFdkQlUzraxc7 GYtiRhT/4kWjhKELO5I/gtNrubnoe/H8BEFfdEFhWjpl9gSJ3IombEz3V w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFANzJMVGtJXG//2dsb2JhbABEwkV8FnOCHwEBAQMBAQEBNzQGBQUHBAIBCBEEAQEBHgkHIQYLFAkIAgQOBYgBAwkGDLcNDYkwjEWBF4EOKAsCBQaCWWEDlGaBXYEeijWFGIMIgXI X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,767,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="182940129" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2013 09:48:32 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r229mWSc024391 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 2 Mar 2013 09:48:32 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.112]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 03:48:31 -0600 From: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" To: Abdussalam Baryun Subject: Re: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area Thread-Topic: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area Thread-Index: AQHOFxsdmxHwGMZ8XU2iiLh+PITZ2ZiSJ/u9 Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 09:48:30 +0000 Message-ID: References: <007801ce1661$8077b290$816717b0$@olddog.co.uk> <5130979B.3050406@cisco.com>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 09:48:41 -0000 Have you looked at the comments feed in the data tracker and the search mai= l facility? If do these satisfy your needs? If not could you write a script to adapt th= em to your needs? -Stewart Sent from my iPad On 2 Mar 2013, at 07:54, "Abdussalam Baryun" w= rote: > Hi Stewart and Adrian, >=20 > Yes it was the DFF draft, as example wanted to see its reflect/affect > in routing area, or any individual draft related/maybe-related to > Routing Area. From your guide below I already understood before but > not able to track work per area-drafts, I track work per draft-name, > but where are decisions of editors and management related to area. > However, more important to track decisions in the Area. >=20 > For example, how can I see where the individual draft editors ask for > recognition from AD, then the AD agree/disagree, then may negotiate > with other areas or with WGs, or with IETF participants. The history > in the track doesn't show the effort of asking from editors to WGs or > Areas only shows AD adopted. We got a post from that AD in last call > stage which is late. This reminds me of a last call draft edited by > one AD saying there is importance of cross areas and a need decision > structure for IESG, but her I note how can I as participant to track > such drafts related to my area works (e.g. one participant posted in > routing area that DFF draft may affect a WG) to make structure for my > decisions. >=20 > In conclusion, I don't want to get notice (decision related) in late > stage that there is an individual draft that may affect my WG/Area and > I should review and decide within 2 weeks while that draft was working > inside the same organisation for long (are we following the IETF > vision in our work flow?). I propose a Last Call Area which should be > not less than 3 months. So if that AD adopts and feels the draft > affects/related to some areas he/she SHOULD announce the Area Last > Call. >=20 > just my thoughts and reflection to inputs in IETF routing area, >=20 > AB >=20 > On 3/1/13, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> How about >>=20 >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ >>=20 >> document search on the left - type in dff >>=20 >> Takes you to >>=20 >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=3Ddff&activeDrafts=3Don&rfc= s=3Don >>=20 >> click on draft-cardenas-dff-09 >> >>=20 >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/ >>=20 >> Now what is it you want to know about the draft? >>=20 >> Stewart >>=20 >>=20 >> On 01/03/2013 10:40, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >>> Hi Adrian, >>>=20 >>> I tried to find/comment using the tracker for individual drafts >>> related to routing area but wasn't able, is it only for WG drafts, or >>> there is away I don't know, >>>=20 >>> AB >>>=20 >>> On 3/1/13, Adrian Farrel wrote: >>>> Hi Abdussalam, >>>>=20 >>>> As Thomas notes, 6lowpan is in the INT Area. >>>> The DFF I-D has received sponsorship as an individual I-D from one of >>>> the >>>> INT >>>> ADs. >>>> Although the I-D did not receive much attention in the routing area as >>>> it >>>> was >>>> developed, it was flagged to MANET and ROLL during IETF last call to >>>> give >>>> people >>>> a chance to comment and, if necessary observe important impact on >>>> routing >>>> systems. >>>> During IETF last call I commissioned a review from a member of the >>>> Routing >>>> Directorate. This review along with other last call review comments >>>> (such >>>> as >>>> yours) have led the editor of the document to say that a new revision = is >>>> needed >>>> and will be posted soon (probably during IETF week). As a result, the >>>> IESG's >>>> evaluation of the document has been deferred until a date toward the e= nd >>>> of >>>> March. >>>> The Routing ADs have yet to perform their evaluation of the document a= nd >>>> would >>>> be happy to hear from anyone who has concerns about the impact of the >>>> work >>>> on >>>> routing. >>>>=20 >>>> A more abstract question might be: suppose a routing AD decided to >>>> individually >>>> sponsor a document in this way, how would the decision be recorded? Th= e >>>> answer >>>> would be "in the data tracker for the draft concerned". >>>>=20 >>>> Cheers, >>>> Adrian >>>>=20 >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion- >>>>> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun >>>>> Sent: 28 February 2013 22:11 >>>>> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org >>>>> Subject: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area >>>>>=20 >>>>> Hi Folks, >>>>>=20 >>>>> I have a question regarding the WG under the Routing Area, >>>>>=20 >>>>> There was one protocol DFF sent to IESG and mentioned that there was >>>>> no WG that relates to it, which I think it was 6Lowpan. I got a >>>>> respond that this WG may not accept new drafts. Please advise why? an= d >>>>> When/where was the decision made, or how to track such decision in th= e >>>>> Routing Area? >>>>>=20 >>>>> AB >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> routing-discussion mailing list >>>>> routing-discussion@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion >>> _______________________________________________ >>> routing-discussion mailing list >>> routing-discussion@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion >>> . >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> For corporate legal information go to: >>=20 >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html >>=20 >>=20 From fred@cisco.com Sat Mar 2 02:20:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1361D21F8887 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 02:20:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.162, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HABkKDEBAp76 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 02:20:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D0321F8833 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 02:20:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=272; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362219651; x=1363429251; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=vS7BZqz5wl63rSoXvhBNY1V/KzGGiOyTqYUWIS9XfFA=; b=eFSdUx4anEcvDkG1AsaLppzuSrOHPUrlWlPW8josrecG/9G+mUNUUhT4 re+u0fBpoC171rvKDsDNS7aoaxSbAcoGOsUsPPtiU5dlHzzjJNn1lTHYX Gobfdo6sNt9vrnKqAyviHkU+OwPmFRfOe/c8p4gplbMxuV5SaBOpIYuu0 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvEFAPjRMVGtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABEhgi8PXwWc4IfAQEBAwE6PwULAgEIIhQQMiUCBA4FCIgFBsBijmoCMQeCX2EDpy6DCIIn X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,767,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="182989481" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Mar 2013 10:20:50 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com [173.36.12.78]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r22AKoHU009300 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:20:50 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.206]) by xhc-aln-x04.cisco.com ([173.36.12.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 04:20:50 -0600 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: Abdussalam Baryun Subject: Re: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area Thread-Topic: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area Thread-Index: AQHOFgCBET2KS0+WSEGVHQHEVboFMJiQPBcAgAJbtYA= Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:20:50 +0000 Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B7BB111@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> References: <54CEF97A-E5AD-4756-B620-8E4F37E1623E@thomasclausen.org> In-Reply-To: <54CEF97A-E5AD-4756-B620-8E4F37E1623E@thomasclausen.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.117] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 10:20:52 -0000 On Feb 28, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Thomas Heide Clausen = wrote: > AFAIK, 6LoWPAN is not a routing area WG, so I guess you will have more lu= ck asking elsewhere (say, the AD overseeing 6LoWPAN).=20 That would be 6lowpan-ads@tools.ietf.org.= From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sat Mar 2 02:49:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1E3121F8FD8 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 02:49:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G5Y8dYGk6i2K for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 02:49:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC7821F8FD7 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 02:49:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r22AnKFr015802; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:49:20 GMT Received: from 950129200 (089144192008.atnat0001.highway.a1.net [89.144.192.8]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r22AnH1G015772 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:49:19 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: "'Abdussalam Baryun'" , References: <007801ce1661$8077b290$816717b0$@olddog.co.uk> <5130979B.3050406@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 10:49:20 -0000 Message-ID: <01ec01ce1733$99db2550$cd916ff0$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQJCRwp3JJZ3hvZy13AaybP3ZdOLTgC7j1/WAW0ge5kCshjj9gIFIWYSl3LUwvA= Content-Language: en-gb Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 10:49:27 -0000 Hi again, Well, OK, individual I-Ds are by their nature individual. So generally you look them up individually by name. That begs the question: how do you know about them? And the answer is that you don't! Is that a good state of affairs? In my opinion it is not, but if an individual decides that he wants to write a draft and not benefit from IETF review until the last moment, I suppose that is his affair. The tools and datatracker do allow you to do some selective searching, but if you do not know that an I-D exists, you may be lucky and find an appropriate key word. Of course, if you are subscribed to IETF-Announce you will receive an email every time a new version of an I-D is posted. This will give you the name, title, abstract, and URL. So this is a pretty good way of getting a heads-up about on-going work. To carry on the theme: an individual I-D is not "in an area". Maybe it should be, but it isn't. So there is no per-area hook to hang it on. Furthermore, until the author approaches an AD for sponsorship in the publication process, the I-D is not formally attached to any AD, so there is no hook there, either. Once an AD agrees to sponsor an I-D for which publication has been requested, an association is made between the AD and the I-D. Then you can see the I-D on the appropriate page in the datatracker. The datatracker allows you to search by "Responsible AD". For example: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=&activeDrafts=on&by=ad&ad=104198&se arch_submit= So, if you wanted to search out individual I-D sponsored by the two Routing ADs, you would repeat this search for Stewart's name. But note that just because a Routing AD sponsors an I-D does not mean it is directly relevant to the Routing Area or to routing technology. See that draft-farrell-ft is shown at the top of my list. The ADs have a sort of unwritten understanding that sponsoring an I-D that clearly belongs in a different area is not a very good thing (unless the ADs from that area specifically request it). You said: > In conclusion, I don't want to get notice (decision related) in late > stage that there is an individual draft that may affect my WG/Area and > I should review and decide within 2 weeks while that draft was working > inside the same organisation for long (are we following the IETF > vision in our work flow?). I propose a Last Call Area which should be > not less than 3 months. So if that AD adopts and feels the draft > affects/related to some areas he/she SHOULD announce the Area Last > Call. And nor do I! But it happens sometimes. When Stewart or I have sponsored an I-D in the Routing Area, we have made an effort to discuss the I-D with WGs close to the work in advance of the IETF last call. That mitigates the problem. And we also have this mailing list. In this specific case, I believe that the AD concerned (Ralph) genuinely believed that the document did not have significant impact on the work of the Routing Area. When I saw the IETF last call , I immediately (and without actually having read the document) flagged it to ROLL as potentially relevant. Shortly after, Ralph also flagged it to MANET. Since this document does not appear for IESG evaluation until later in March, the Routing ADs would be interested to hear any concerns wrt routing that the community has. Cheers, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@gmail.com] > Sent: 02 March 2013 07:54 > To: stbryant@cisco.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org > Subject: Re: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area > > Hi Stewart and Adrian, > > Yes it was the DFF draft, as example wanted to see its reflect/affect > in routing area, or any individual draft related/maybe-related to > Routing Area. From your guide below I already understood before but > not able to track work per area-drafts, I track work per draft-name, > but where are decisions of editors and management related to area. > However, more important to track decisions in the Area. > > For example, how can I see where the individual draft editors ask for > recognition from AD, then the AD agree/disagree, then may negotiate > with other areas or with WGs, or with IETF participants. The history > in the track doesn't show the effort of asking from editors to WGs or > Areas only shows AD adopted. We got a post from that AD in last call > stage which is late. This reminds me of a last call draft edited by > one AD saying there is importance of cross areas and a need decision > structure for IESG, but her I note how can I as participant to track > such drafts related to my area works (e.g. one participant posted in > routing area that DFF draft may affect a WG) to make structure for my > decisions. > > In conclusion, I don't want to get notice (decision related) in late > stage that there is an individual draft that may affect my WG/Area and > I should review and decide within 2 weeks while that draft was working > inside the same organisation for long (are we following the IETF > vision in our work flow?). I propose a Last Call Area which should be > not less than 3 months. So if that AD adopts and feels the draft > affects/related to some areas he/she SHOULD announce the Area Last > Call. > > just my thoughts and reflection to inputs in IETF routing area, > > AB > > On 3/1/13, Stewart Bryant wrote: > > How about > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ > > > > document search on the left - type in dff > > > > Takes you to > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=dff&activeDrafts=on&rfcs=on > > > > click on draft-cardenas-dff-09 > > > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/ > > > > Now what is it you want to know about the draft? > > > > Stewart > > > > > > On 01/03/2013 10:40, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: > >> Hi Adrian, > >> > >> I tried to find/comment using the tracker for individual drafts > >> related to routing area but wasn't able, is it only for WG drafts, or > >> there is away I don't know, > >> > >> AB > >> > >> On 3/1/13, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >>> Hi Abdussalam, > >>> > >>> As Thomas notes, 6lowpan is in the INT Area. > >>> The DFF I-D has received sponsorship as an individual I-D from one of > >>> the > >>> INT > >>> ADs. > >>> Although the I-D did not receive much attention in the routing area as > >>> it > >>> was > >>> developed, it was flagged to MANET and ROLL during IETF last call to > >>> give > >>> people > >>> a chance to comment and, if necessary observe important impact on > >>> routing > >>> systems. > >>> During IETF last call I commissioned a review from a member of the > >>> Routing > >>> Directorate. This review along with other last call review comments > >>> (such > >>> as > >>> yours) have led the editor of the document to say that a new revision is > >>> needed > >>> and will be posted soon (probably during IETF week). As a result, the > >>> IESG's > >>> evaluation of the document has been deferred until a date toward the end > >>> of > >>> March. > >>> The Routing ADs have yet to perform their evaluation of the document and > >>> would > >>> be happy to hear from anyone who has concerns about the impact of the > >>> work > >>> on > >>> routing. > >>> > >>> A more abstract question might be: suppose a routing AD decided to > >>> individually > >>> sponsor a document in this way, how would the decision be recorded? The > >>> answer > >>> would be "in the data tracker for the draft concerned". > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Adrian > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:routing-discussion- > >>>> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun > >>>> Sent: 28 February 2013 22:11 > >>>> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org > >>>> Subject: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area > >>>> > >>>> Hi Folks, > >>>> > >>>> I have a question regarding the WG under the Routing Area, > >>>> > >>>> There was one protocol DFF sent to IESG and mentioned that there was > >>>> no WG that relates to it, which I think it was 6Lowpan. I got a > >>>> respond that this WG may not accept new drafts. Please advise why? and > >>>> When/where was the decision made, or how to track such decision in the > >>>> Routing Area? > >>>> > >>>> AB > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> routing-discussion mailing list > >>>> routing-discussion@ietf.org > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> routing-discussion mailing list > >> routing-discussion@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > >> . > >> > > > > > > -- > > For corporate legal information go to: > > > > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html > > > > From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Sat Mar 2 11:21:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87BC121F856C for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:21:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id crndwXz8dRMb for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:21:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-da0-f50.google.com (mail-da0-f50.google.com [209.85.210.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC0621F8551 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:21:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-da0-f50.google.com with SMTP id h15so1913900dan.37 for ; Sat, 02 Mar 2013 11:21:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=504zTtVZqBUI9rDoRb2l1vEkNOsu/aVuYSbezXHexJg=; b=A0JImqSP5MrY/Uu6FbjQo/Jkl7aFcCim/08KT7nok5KoJcLA1SGu65ViRWDO8I1y4U zoKBXxDOriZNuPELiZcrWGad1z//2ocOv6RnOiGaA9TMUVa2cXAcl8xjaY7VnqaZdzVI on4YdQbg9Iyl9T/y/fyB1jUcs+c86re5tG+xTo66S0LoKRCzkLNeMknbbnBTFnFAa3Nd 0hHlnzi/UmFTMdV6N6xvR7B2bB39wPrNgamONYC67mMZQ2XucXBo944xytXnl6uC1AyV 2CJEIuQkeVIQY6PgQlRSCq0FKbrtJuIoUBg7DMyV8fg7qUfrKxgyx4WnmDbd3lO3cGVY xGwA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.158.2 with SMTP id wq2mr24709351pab.113.1362252077904; Sat, 02 Mar 2013 11:21:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.33.132 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:21:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <01ec01ce1733$99db2550$cd916ff0$@olddog.co.uk> References: <007801ce1661$8077b290$816717b0$@olddog.co.uk> <5130979B.3050406@cisco.com> <01ec01ce1733$99db2550$cd916ff0$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 20:21:17 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area From: Abdussalam Baryun To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 19:21:19 -0000 Hi Adrian and Stewart, Thanks alot, now I understand the way that I can track them, Best Regards Abdussalam Baryun, On 3/2/13, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi again, > > Well, OK, individual I-Ds are by their nature individual. So generally you > look > them up individually by name. > That begs the question: how do you know about them? And the answer is that > you > don't! > Is that a good state of affairs? In my opinion it is not, but if an > individual > decides that he wants to write a draft and not benefit from IETF review > until > the last moment, I suppose that is his affair. > > The tools and datatracker do allow you to do some selective searching, but > if > you do not know that an I-D exists, you may be lucky and find an appropriate > key > word. > > Of course, if you are subscribed to IETF-Announce you will receive an email > every time a new version of an I-D is posted. This will give you the name, > title, abstract, and URL. So this is a pretty good way of getting a > heads-up > about on-going work. > > To carry on the theme: an individual I-D is not "in an area". Maybe it > should > be, but it isn't. So there is no per-area hook to hang it on. > Furthermore, until the author approaches an AD for sponsorship in the > publication process, the I-D is not formally attached to any AD, so there is > no > hook there, either. > > Once an AD agrees to sponsor an I-D for which publication has been > requested, an > association is made between the AD and the I-D. Then you can see the I-D on > the > appropriate page in the datatracker. The datatracker allows you to search > by > "Responsible AD". For example: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=&activeDrafts=on&by=ad&ad=104198&se > arch_submit= > > So, if you wanted to search out individual I-D sponsored by the two Routing > ADs, > you would repeat this search for Stewart's name. > > But note that just because a Routing AD sponsors an I-D does not mean it is > directly relevant to the Routing Area or to routing technology. See that > draft-farrell-ft is shown at the top of my list. > > The ADs have a sort of unwritten understanding that sponsoring an I-D that > clearly belongs in a different area is not a very good thing (unless the > ADs > from that area specifically request it). > > You said: > >> In conclusion, I don't want to get notice (decision related) in late >> stage that there is an individual draft that may affect my WG/Area and >> I should review and decide within 2 weeks while that draft was working >> inside the same organisation for long (are we following the IETF >> vision in our work flow?). I propose a Last Call Area which should be >> not less than 3 months. So if that AD adopts and feels the draft >> affects/related to some areas he/she SHOULD announce the Area Last >> Call. > > And nor do I! > But it happens sometimes. > When Stewart or I have sponsored an I-D in the Routing Area, we have made > an > effort to discuss the I-D with WGs close to the work in advance of the IETF > last > call. That mitigates the problem. And we also have this mailing list. > > In this specific case, I believe that the AD concerned (Ralph) genuinely > believed that the document did not have significant impact on the work of > the > Routing Area. When I saw the IETF last call , I immediately (and without > actually having read the document) flagged it to ROLL as potentially > relevant. > Shortly after, Ralph also flagged it to MANET. > > Since this document does not appear for IESG evaluation until later in > March, > the Routing ADs would be interested to hear any concerns wrt routing that > the > community has. > > Cheers, > Adrian > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:abdussalambaryun@gmail.com] >> Sent: 02 March 2013 07:54 >> To: stbryant@cisco.com; adrian@olddog.co.uk >> Cc: routing-discussion@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area >> >> Hi Stewart and Adrian, >> >> Yes it was the DFF draft, as example wanted to see its reflect/affect >> in routing area, or any individual draft related/maybe-related to >> Routing Area. From your guide below I already understood before but >> not able to track work per area-drafts, I track work per draft-name, >> but where are decisions of editors and management related to area. >> However, more important to track decisions in the Area. >> >> For example, how can I see where the individual draft editors ask for >> recognition from AD, then the AD agree/disagree, then may negotiate >> with other areas or with WGs, or with IETF participants. The history >> in the track doesn't show the effort of asking from editors to WGs or >> Areas only shows AD adopted. We got a post from that AD in last call >> stage which is late. This reminds me of a last call draft edited by >> one AD saying there is importance of cross areas and a need decision >> structure for IESG, but her I note how can I as participant to track >> such drafts related to my area works (e.g. one participant posted in >> routing area that DFF draft may affect a WG) to make structure for my >> decisions. >> >> In conclusion, I don't want to get notice (decision related) in late >> stage that there is an individual draft that may affect my WG/Area and >> I should review and decide within 2 weeks while that draft was working >> inside the same organisation for long (are we following the IETF >> vision in our work flow?). I propose a Last Call Area which should be >> not less than 3 months. So if that AD adopts and feels the draft >> affects/related to some areas he/she SHOULD announce the Area Last >> Call. >> >> just my thoughts and reflection to inputs in IETF routing area, >> >> AB >> >> On 3/1/13, Stewart Bryant wrote: >> > How about >> > >> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/ >> > >> > document search on the left - type in dff >> > >> > Takes you to >> > >> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=dff&activeDrafts=on&rfcs=on >> > >> > click on draft-cardenas-dff-09 >> > >> > >> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cardenas-dff/ >> > >> > Now what is it you want to know about the draft? >> > >> > Stewart >> > >> > >> > On 01/03/2013 10:40, Abdussalam Baryun wrote: >> >> Hi Adrian, >> >> >> >> I tried to find/comment using the tracker for individual drafts >> >> related to routing area but wasn't able, is it only for WG drafts, or >> >> there is away I don't know, >> >> >> >> AB >> >> >> >> On 3/1/13, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> >>> Hi Abdussalam, >> >>> >> >>> As Thomas notes, 6lowpan is in the INT Area. >> >>> The DFF I-D has received sponsorship as an individual I-D from one of >> >>> the >> >>> INT >> >>> ADs. >> >>> Although the I-D did not receive much attention in the routing area >> >>> as >> >>> it >> >>> was >> >>> developed, it was flagged to MANET and ROLL during IETF last call to >> >>> give >> >>> people >> >>> a chance to comment and, if necessary observe important impact on >> >>> routing >> >>> systems. >> >>> During IETF last call I commissioned a review from a member of the >> >>> Routing >> >>> Directorate. This review along with other last call review comments >> >>> (such >> >>> as >> >>> yours) have led the editor of the document to say that a new revision >> >>> is >> >>> needed >> >>> and will be posted soon (probably during IETF week). As a result, the >> >>> IESG's >> >>> evaluation of the document has been deferred until a date toward the >> >>> end >> >>> of >> >>> March. >> >>> The Routing ADs have yet to perform their evaluation of the document >> >>> and >> >>> would >> >>> be happy to hear from anyone who has concerns about the impact of the >> >>> work >> >>> on >> >>> routing. >> >>> >> >>> A more abstract question might be: suppose a routing AD decided to >> >>> individually >> >>> sponsor a document in this way, how would the decision be recorded? >> >>> The >> >>> answer >> >>> would be "in the data tracker for the draft concerned". >> >>> >> >>> Cheers, >> >>> Adrian >> >>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: routing-discussion-bounces@ietf.org >> >>>> [mailto:routing-discussion- >> >>>> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Abdussalam Baryun >> >>>> Sent: 28 February 2013 22:11 >> >>>> To: routing-discussion@ietf.org >> >>>> Subject: A question regarding how to track decisions in this area >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi Folks, >> >>>> >> >>>> I have a question regarding the WG under the Routing Area, >> >>>> >> >>>> There was one protocol DFF sent to IESG and mentioned that there was >> >>>> no WG that relates to it, which I think it was 6Lowpan. I got a >> >>>> respond that this WG may not accept new drafts. Please advise why? >> >>>> and >> >>>> When/where was the decision made, or how to track such decision in >> >>>> the >> >>>> Routing Area? >> >>>> >> >>>> AB >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> routing-discussion mailing list >> >>>> routing-discussion@ietf.org >> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion >> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> routing-discussion mailing list >> >> routing-discussion@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion >> >> . >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > For corporate legal information go to: >> > >> > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html >> > >> > > > From adrian@olddog.co.uk Sun Mar 10 08:43:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55BF21F862E; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:43:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nVx9NjNl2Sox; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C171721F8618; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r2AFhavC020454; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:43:36 GMT Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-1045.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.16.69]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r2AFhXYN020443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:43:35 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , , Subject: Reminder Routing ADs Open Office Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:43:32 -0000 Message-ID: <007a01ce1da6$068cf200$13a6d600$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac4dpgKeNwL3khv2S++lq/AIglip3w== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: stbryant@cisco.com X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 15:43:43 -0000 Reminder that we are available on Tuesday lunch time in the IETF Office (Boca 3) 11.30ish to just before 1pm. Bring your issues and praises (and food if you can find it in this hell-hole). Adrian per pro Stewart and Adrian From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Sun Mar 10 09:15:44 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC8BD21F86E3; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:15:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.623 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.623 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 727lJujfG5cJ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f43.google.com (mail-pb0-f43.google.com [209.85.160.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5622E21F86DE; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f43.google.com with SMTP id md12so2903973pbc.30 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:15:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VWEu9r0EyyTBlE7ltNf7PmmsfGcGeiTHJSV9c4xX7KM=; b=dSiz8nZ/kDwbs5Sv2XAgeU1WXuqjVyumJ0RQkVMjh2bq1IcCF7TWSylYvLEL/CfBld FJpS6W2wbC2N6/7JNbnqFszRAnOLmw5F3+frKPWXHm8F6+cmf4Gc9eDfDx30RzNRyPef LrCcdeK2cf67V+mwZpHz+d338rWowCbeGndNpiwkonfliNFnBi25hWgAdzGBxLs4kA8G OFGCRBQvC6JySGJuVcyXMl4S8MiXaBYPhhlZjfHBjFCRyhr6L/b5szSmSI0nWMnFLKbW U+laqGOkq0K8RxO837MLv2ckiO8tR0uR0nXzrrGDr+hVWvhzt3158Zfm8YIFBb8Fhejp U/uA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.25.42 with SMTP id z10mr19397034pbf.113.1362932142888; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.33.132 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <007a01ce1da6$068cf200$13a6d600$@olddog.co.uk> References: <007a01ce1da6$068cf200$13a6d600$@olddog.co.uk> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:15:42 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Reminder Routing ADs Open Office From: Abdussalam Baryun To: adrian@olddog.co.uk Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec52157273bdf8c04d7945e27 Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com, routing-discussion@ietf.org, rtg-chairs@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 16:15:44 -0000 --bcaec52157273bdf8c04d7945e27 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Adrian, Are calls acceptable or does the IETF office have a telephone if I want to call?, if yes pleaase provide the number, thanking you, AB On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Reminder that we are available on Tuesday lunch time in the IETF Office > (Boca 3) > 11.30ish to just before 1pm. > > Bring your issues and praises (and food if you can find it in this > hell-hole). > > Adrian > per pro Stewart and Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > routing-discussion mailing list > routing-discussion@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion > --bcaec52157273bdf8c04d7945e27 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Adrian,
=A0
Are calls acceptable or does the IE= TF office have a telephone if I want to call?, if yes pleaase provide the n= umber, thanking you,
=A0
AB

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk&= gt; wrote:
Reminder that we are available on Tuesday lunch time in the IETF Office (Bo= ca 3)
11.30ish to just before 1pm.

Bring your issues and praises (and food if you can find it in this hell-hol= e).

Adrian
per pro Stewart and Adrian

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
routing-discussion@ietf.org<= /a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

--bcaec52157273bdf8c04d7945e27-- From abdussalambaryun@gmail.com Sun Mar 17 05:35:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4687D21F86F2; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 05:35:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yIsetCpIngMi; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 05:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f41.google.com (mail-pb0-f41.google.com [209.85.160.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9875221F86D6; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 05:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id um15so5706577pbc.14 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 05:35:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=6bf271ep2S8C41AgHn4icMq44wBCeXEaW7L3RtqAdj0=; b=iDpY244rs217qa4qlmxpPLx3mgyEKVNUZrBBnLZD3UA7vF7jHOCqf2uL2KEMYFQH1v ptxRsMnTXms/hToG74ehXDtC4hAu/+WYHnEGOMImKuAoJ0MDb4qf5pF+g/4OZYjOBq7c z7UEVPsUcXEp7F3s1BBqr2JA2V0aix4pBcTEztxCReckAl/SFw+4xZ0ODaaRNUlYikUf fySopJnN2PEen5pluZjfJzUI4zwG1P9V6tBayvQ2vLTf65ovWSaZJD/eypQU7iKWzMz7 heCbt60xC65miDHiowxiA+a9AV8GxTn+eXJt4A23/Ke6ws9LunP0ou1ubxtqSa1wx9Rz LBJg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.48.129 with SMTP id l1mr5128437pan.215.1363523758426; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 05:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.33.132 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 05:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:35:58 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Please review draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt From: Abdussalam Baryun To: ietf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: housley , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 12:35:59 -0000 Hi Russ, I have four questions before following the request. Qs below; please answer, [rfc2050bis-00] > The administrative structures of the Internet Numbers Registry System > described in this document are largely the result of the interaction > of operational practices, existing routing technology, number > resource assignments that have occurred over time, and network > architectural history. Further discussion and analysis of these > interactions are outside the scope of this document. 1) Is this a historic document of Internet numbers or informational, you mention history of what *occured over time*, but does the document show dates? 2) The operational practices you mentioned and existing routing technology, do they have technical purposes? if yes I think it will be in scope to provide the purposes of thoes practices in the applicability statement section. 3) Was this document's concerns discussed in IETF Routing Area or a related document produced by the area? if yes please refer, if not I recommend to be discussed. 4) What is the reason of out of scope, and not even refering to a reference best paractice? Will there be IETF discussion and analysis of these interaction in future? I think if informational document some recommendations and analysis are helpful. Regards AB From antostalin@gmail.com Tue Mar 19 02:44:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6132121F880F for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:44:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XD8GbP8vrQr5 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (mail-wg0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A617921F87BB for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e12so190866wge.10 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:44:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=0gepZI7/xvkVKCvyz2E9wNIfgZddKA+mS+sRRjo2Les=; b=Amfi6SWO/Nni5MxqelgcCVOCL3tx9NrIVBX6vK3ufMr6GJLprvyLUD20HnOap39zoD 5MlXcGzR50dy45M2bDJm68PIcw32qRVb6f2otWzR24ekDBcUHWW6vbYrR9DUdqhjiqvX Agy6Cl19ox5fbZFY3O60epFEA641mFWmJCK7nPYZTX6+Rx68x55m1XRYdXrOnkhoizpm aeoj5S7RuymhvRqW9/EH9O0mDJ93q6QkKbgDd4CEeDMB2zR/Fn5e1qMp6b6T5St2xXMm YLjAzWmMIr/W5+RFiTV6ZqD+v0+RDZRP3BJEnmkx87sZfI3kJZwamtUQR8ldHY5O69Fl xK7w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.78.168 with SMTP id c8mr1807884wix.27.1363686293812; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.138.115 with HTTP; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 02:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:14:53 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: i join in this group From: anto stalin To: routing-discussion@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c08d820bd3304d843f59e X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:44:55 -0000 --f46d043c08d820bd3304d843f59e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 --f46d043c08d820bd3304d843f59e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 --f46d043c08d820bd3304d843f59e-- From drc@virtualized.org Sun Mar 17 17:58:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF2B21F8A35; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:58:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id He3+Boi2yJ19; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from trantor.virtualized.org (trantor.virtualized.org [199.48.134.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A025621F89D8; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:58:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.4] (c-24-4-109-25.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.4.109.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drc) by trantor.virtualized.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0244171D9; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:58:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Please review draft-housley-rfc2050bis-00.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: David Conrad In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:58:20 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4822BDE5-EB93-45C3-A77E-4AABA6D46F20@virtualized.org> References: To: Abdussalam Baryun X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 06:20:02 -0700 Cc: ietf X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 00:58:23 -0000 [cc to routing-discussion@ietf.org moved to bcc try to keep discussion = splay limited] Hi, Speaking for myself as one of the authors: On Mar 17, 2013, at 5:35 AM, Abdussalam Baryun = wrote: > I have four questions before following the request. Qs below; please = answer, >=20 > 1) Is this a historic document of Internet numbers or informational, > you mention history of what *occured over time*, but does the document > show dates? Having a little trouble parsing this question. There was a concerted = effort to _concisely_ describe the Internet Numbers Registry System as = it is and, to a limited extent, came to be. There were some proposed = edits that went a bit more into the historical detail that included = dates, but those edits were left out because we felt "less is more" and = if someone cares, they can track down the history of the registry system = through the "obsoletes" chain. > 2) The operational practices you mentioned and existing routing > technology, do they have technical purposes? if yes I think it will be > in scope to provide the purposes of thoes practices in the > applicability statement section. I personally feel that the justification for the routing-related = operational practices are unrelated to a document that is tightly = focused on describing the Internet Numbers Registry System as it exists = today.=20 > 3) Was this document's concerns discussed in IETF Routing Area or a > related document produced by the area? if yes please refer, if not I > recommend to be discussed. This document is attempting to describe reality, not change it. While = current routing system realities are indeed something that should be = discussed, I believe a separate document would be appropriate to propose = changes to that reality that would affect the Internet Numbers Registry = System.=20 > 4) What is the reason of out of scope, and not even refering to a > reference best paractice? Will there be IETF discussion and analysis > of these interaction in future? I think if informational document some > recommendations and analysis are helpful. Again, this document is merely attempting to document the existing = system, not provide any analysis of the benefits or issues with that = system. This is not to say that such analysis shouldn't be done (or = that benefits or issues don't exist), rather that it wasn't the focus or = intent of the document. Hope this helps. Regards, -drc (Speaking only for myself as an author of the document) From adrian@olddog.co.uk Thu Mar 21 01:26:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DC4B21F8F06 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 01:26:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5GoI00UYpeWT for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 01:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45ADE21F8EF2 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 01:26:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r2L8Q57b010563; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:26:05 GMT Received: from 950129200 ([88.128.80.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r2L8Q3nQ010520 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:26:04 GMT From: "Adrian Farrel" To: Subject: Routing Area meeting minutes Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:26:05 -0000 Message-ID: <02da01ce260d$bc49b320$34dd1960$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac4mDbd5OI7Z9ijfT9GD00OfgqmFhw== Content-Language: en-gb Cc: db3546@att.com, stbryant@cisco.com X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:26:18 -0000 Hi, Draft minutes are uploaded at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/minutes/minutes-86-rtgarea Comments welcome. Many thanks (again and as usual) to Deborah. Adrian