From bdavie@cisco.com Mon Nov 1 15:56:10 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C543A69CA for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:56:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00fu86nZrGv4 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:56:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D538E3A69C9 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 15:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,277,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="279246839" Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2010 22:56:07 +0000 Received: from [10.32.241.75] ([10.32.241.75]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA1MtxwY001800; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 22:55:59 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Bruce Davie In-Reply-To: <201011012250.oA1MoRUu007129@sj-core-3.cisco.com> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 18:55:59 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201011012250.oA1MoRUu007129@sj-core-3.cisco.com> To: "James M. Polk" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Getting RSVP Directorate Feedback into TSVWG X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 22:56:10 -0000 James, I have reviewed the multiple tspec draft and I am in favor of its = adoption (as I think I have said before, and, IIRC, I provided details = as to why). I think Lixia is also on record as supporting that draft. I have asked the directorate for feedback a couple of times, and Bob = Briscoe gave some feedback, which led to me gather more info from you as = to why these drafts were worthy of consideration. I have provided that = info to the directorate. I will craft a more publicly acceptable email for the TSVWG list. But I = can't speak much more for the directorate than I have done here. Bruce On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:50 PM, James M. Polk wrote: > All >=20 > This is written as both the TSVWG chair and as an individual author of = several active IDs into TSVWG. >=20 > As an individual, I didn't think I needed to request this, but I am = anyway - because I haven't received any feedback from the RSVP = Directorate to date, and we're 5 days away from the next IETF meeting. >=20 > I am requesting that the RSVP Directorate review these two IDs >=20 > = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspe= c-05.txt and > = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profil= es-01.txt >=20 > Are either or both of these IDs worth the effort of the TSVWG to take = on a WG items (or not)? >=20 > Lars freely admits that he considers IntServ to be joined with RSVP = wrt the TSVWG charter. We chairs are crafting text for a charter update = to reflect that explicitly. >=20 > The MULTI_TSPEC ID has been presented at every IETF, in TSVWG, since = San Francisco -- and really was the reason this Directorate formed = (because the ADs chose to punt the ball wrt whether to allow the = adoption of this WG item by TSVWG). This Directorate had a BoF of sorts = in Anaheim, which was well attended and included a lot of energy. At = issue is that no one from the Directorate provided an ounce of input = into TSVWG for the next IETF (in Maastricht), and I - as chair - haven't = heard from any of you since Maastricht on either of the documents listed = above one way or the other. >=20 > This is where I put my WG chair hat on, as ask - rather bluntly - why = there has been zero input into TSVWG even though the Directorate charter = (if you will) clearly states reviewing RSVP based IDs is the purpose of = the Directorate, and the fact that there are now two IDs sitting in = completely limbo awaiting WG input from the Directorate. >=20 > I realize everyone's time here is quite busy, but these IDs need = feedback from those chartered to give said feedback. >=20 > Please response on to this nudge on the TSVWG list. >=20 > James >=20 From bdavie@cisco.com Mon Nov 1 16:14:52 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E7E93A6A11; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:14:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3DAf+UlfL82o; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9E03A6A68; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-4.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAA7nzkyrRN+K/2dsb2JhbAChZnGiHpwNhUUEilSDCId/ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,277,1286150400"; d="scan'208,217";a="210255302" Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2010 23:14:53 +0000 Received: from [10.32.241.75] ([10.32.241.75]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA1NEqkI009797; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:14:52 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-78--1039036696 From: Bruce Davie In-Reply-To: <4CC6C9C4.9000608@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:14:52 -0400 Message-Id: <52B8FF50-1691-483B-94A8-B976CCED3381@cisco.com> References: <4CC6C9C4.9000608@erg.abdn.ac.uk> To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: tsvwg , rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] TSVWG Status Update (Oct 2010) X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 23:14:52 -0000 --Apple-Mail-78--1039036696 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On these 2 drafts: On Oct 26, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec > RSVP directorate to be consulted. > WG interest in this topic recorded at IETF-78. > Charter update would be needed to progress this work. > 5 Reviews needed to determine energy/technical direction. > Author will update -04. > New revision expected. >=20 > draft-lefaucheur-tsvwg-rsvp-multiple-preemption > RSVP directorate to be consulted. > WG needs to assess if this topic should be a work item. Two members of the RSVP directorate (myself and Lixia) have read these = drafts and support their adoption by the WG. Below are some specific = comments that I sent to the chairs, but I failed to send earlier to the = WG. I believe at least one more directorate member has read these drafts = but I've not received feedback one way or another about adoption from = other directorate members. Begin forwarded message: > From: Bruce Davie > Date: August 6, 2010 5:48:40 PM EDT > To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk > Cc: tsv-ads@tools.ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Fwd: Update from RSVP directorate on RSVP = Candidate items? >=20 >=20 > On Jul 27, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >=20 >> Bruce, >>=20 >> It's good to know that you favour adoption. I think we are still = working out the ways the directorate will work. >=20 >>=20 >> I'd really appreciate a bit more detail, since there are quite a few = things that Chairs need to determine before we can allow the WG to = consider adopting the draft - The sort of things I'm interested as a = Chair are: >>=20 >> * What specs would this draft update: Does this seem to update = IntServ? Is it a minor update to RSVP? >=20 > In my view, the 2 drafts MULTI_TSPEC and MULTI_PREEMPTION are an = update to how Intserv is invoked by RSVP, that is to say, RFC 2210. It = is relatively minor (although this is totally subjective). Intserv = defined some services. RSVP was defined as a mechanism to invoke = services. What this draft does is it says that you can invoke a service = by saying what service parameters you would really like, and which = lesser set of parameters you would accept. In the original RSVP design, = you could only send one set of parameters and get a yes/no answer. >=20 >=20 >>=20 >> * Are there any areas that are less mature than others from a = techical point of view: Can you see sections that would need more work? = are there missing sections? >=20 > The draft looks pretty complete to me. But it will need careful = line-by-line review by one or more RSVP experts. >=20 >>=20 >> * Do we need to do this? Why? >=20 > Well, it seems that in the current state of things, you can't use RSVP = to reserve the "right" amount of resources when the endpoints could live = with a range of possible levels. For example, if two endpoints support a = high bit rate and low bit rate encoding, you can't settle on the right = choice of codec in a single RTT today. So, to the extent that you = accept that this is a problem (which I do) yes, we need the draft. >=20 >>=20 >> * Do you know of indications that there may be a "customer" for the = technology: e.g. another working group? to support an application? etc? >=20 > This is most useful to telephony/video conferencing apps in my = reading.=20 >=20 >>=20 >> * Do you know of other things that may help the chairs understand = whether the WG should devote energy to this draft? >>=20 >> * Would one or more members of the directorate volunteer to comment = on progress of this and also commit to reviewing the document as we get = to WGLC? >=20 > I'm willing to do this (but I see that Bob Briscoe has also done a = review which he has not yet posted.)=20 >=20 > Bruce >=20 >>=20 >> * Anything else? >>=20 >> Best wishes, >>=20 >> Gorry >=20 --Apple-Mail-78--1039036696 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii On = these 2 drafts:
On Oct 26, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Gorry = Fairhurst wrote:

From: Bruce Davie <bdavie@cisco.com>
=
Date: August 6, 2010 = 5:48:40 PM EDT
gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] = Fwd: Update from RSVP directorate on RSVP Candidate = items?


On Jul 27, 2010, at 12:16 PM, = Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

Bruce,

It's good to = know that you favour adoption. I think we are still working out the ways = the directorate will work.


I'd really = appreciate a bit more detail, since there are quite a few things that = Chairs need to determine before we can allow the WG to consider adopting = the draft - The sort of things I'm interested as a Chair = are:

* What specs = would this draft update: Does this seem to update IntServ? Is it a minor = update to RSVP?

In my view, the 2 drafts MULTI_TSPEC = and MULTI_PREEMPTION are an update to how Intserv is invoked by RSVP, = that is to say, RFC 2210. It is relatively minor (although this is = totally subjective). Intserv defined some services. RSVP was defined as =  a mechanism to invoke services. What this draft does is it says = that you can invoke a service by saying what service parameters you = would really like, and which lesser set of parameters you would accept. = In the original RSVP design, you could only send one set of parameters = and get a yes/no answer.



* Are there any = areas that are less mature than others from a techical point of view: = Can you see sections that would need more work? are there missing = sections?

The draft looks pretty complete to me. But = it will need careful line-by-line review by one or more RSVP = experts.


* Do we need to do this? Why?

Well, it = seems that in the current state of things, you can't use RSVP to reserve = the "right" amount of resources when the endpoints could live with a = range of possible levels. For example, if two endpoints support a high = bit rate and low bit rate encoding, you can't settle on the right choice = of codec in  a single RTT today. So, to the extent that you accept = that this is a problem (which I do) yes, we need the = draft.


* Do you know of indications that there may be a = "customer" for the technology: e.g. another working group? to support an = application? etc?

This is most useful to = telephony/video conferencing apps in my = reading. 


* Do you know = of other things that may help the chairs understand whether the WG = should devote energy to this draft?

* Would one or = more members of the directorate volunteer to comment on progress of this = and also commit to reviewing the document as we get to = WGLC?

I'm willing to do this (but I see that Bob = Briscoe has also done a review which he has not yet = posted.) 

Bruce


* Anything = else?

Best = wishes,

Gorry

= --Apple-Mail-78--1039036696-- From jmpolk@cisco.com Mon Nov 1 16:58:56 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7923A6A8C for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:58:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FQdAqTN8cPVq for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B523A6A6B for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 16:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Authentication-Results: sj-iport-3.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.58,277,1286150400"; d="scan'208";a="245252284" Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2010 23:58:57 +0000 Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8715.cisco.com [10.99.80.22]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oA1NwuAA027247; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 23:58:56 GMT Message-Id: <201011012358.oA1NwuAA027247@sj-core-2.cisco.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 18:58:54 -0500 To: Bruce Davie , "James M. Polk" From: "James M. Polk" In-Reply-To: References: <201011012250.oA1MoRUu007129@sj-core-3.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Getting RSVP Directorate Feedback into TSVWG X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 23:58:56 -0000 Bruce Thanks for responding so quickly. Part of my reaction was to what the ADs said in Maastricht during TSVWG, that they had no input from the Directorate, and the discussion went downhill from there IMO. Depending on who you believe, even after listening to the meeting audio, there was - mention of the need for two independent implementations in order for the ADs to agree to have MULTI_TSPEC adopted as a WG item (by one AD); and - there was mention of the need for 5 full reviews of any new RSVP/IntServ based ID before one AD would consider recommending to TSVWG that they adopt this item (this by the other AD). With either one of the above, the bar is set quite high (in fact higher than I've ever experienced in the IETF). Additionally, the discussion of the first topic (needing two implementations to be considered a WG item) devolved IMO when Randy Stewart joined the discussion by indicating that this is what he does for all his SCTP IDs, therefore the practice ought to used for everything. No one in the WG agreed to this other than Randy, and in fact, had several folks stating on the mic this was out of line to ask for (Matt Mathis, Fred Baker, and Ken Carlberg if memory serves). James At 05:55 PM 11/1/2010, Bruce Davie wrote: >James, > I have reviewed the multiple tspec draft and I am in favor of its > adoption (as I think I have said before, and, IIRC, I provided > details as to why). I think Lixia is also on record as supporting that draft. > > I have asked the directorate for feedback a couple of times, and > Bob Briscoe gave some feedback, which led to me gather more info > from you as to why these drafts were worthy of consideration. I > have provided that info to the directorate. > > I will craft a more publicly acceptable email for the TSVWG list. > But I can't speak much more for the directorate than I have done here. > >Bruce > > >On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:50 PM, James M. Polk wrote: > > > All > > > > This is written as both the TSVWG chair and as an individual > author of several active IDs into TSVWG. > > > > As an individual, I didn't think I needed to request this, but I > am anyway - because I haven't received any feedback from the RSVP > Directorate to date, and we're 5 days away from the next IETF meeting. > > > > I am requesting that the RSVP Directorate review these two IDs > > > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-05.txt > and > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-01.txt > > > > Are either or both of these IDs worth the effort of the TSVWG to > take on a WG items (or not)? > > > > Lars freely admits that he considers IntServ to be joined with > RSVP wrt the TSVWG charter. We chairs are crafting text for a > charter update to reflect that explicitly. > > > > The MULTI_TSPEC ID has been presented at every IETF, in TSVWG, > since San Francisco -- and really was the reason this Directorate > formed (because the ADs chose to punt the ball wrt whether to allow > the adoption of this WG item by TSVWG). This Directorate had a BoF > of sorts in Anaheim, which was well attended and included a lot of > energy. At issue is that no one from the Directorate provided an > ounce of input into TSVWG for the next IETF (in Maastricht), and I > - as chair - haven't heard from any of you since Maastricht on > either of the documents listed above one way or the other. > > > > This is where I put my WG chair hat on, as ask - rather bluntly - > why there has been zero input into TSVWG even though the > Directorate charter (if you will) clearly states reviewing RSVP > based IDs is the purpose of the Directorate, and the fact that > there are now two IDs sitting in completely limbo awaiting WG input > from the Directorate. > > > > I realize everyone's time here is quite busy, but these IDs need > feedback from those chartered to give said feedback. > > > > Please response on to this nudge on the TSVWG list. > > > > James > > From gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Tue Nov 2 02:13:51 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2872B3A68C3 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:13:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t8z1u+XhVVgi for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (dee.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:241:204:203:baff:fe9a:8c9b]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C055F3A6872 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Gorry-Fairhursts-MacBook-Pro.local (ra-gorry.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.204.42]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id oA29BmLT003728 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 2 Nov 2010 09:11:49 GMT Message-ID: <4CCFD5D4.5000009@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:11:48 +0000 From: Gorry Fairhurst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "James M. Polk" References: <201011012250.oA1MoRUu007129@sj-core-3.cisco.com> <201011012358.oA1NwuAA027247@sj-core-2.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <201011012358.oA1NwuAA027247@sj-core-2.cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ERG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ERG-MailScanner-From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Getting RSVP Directorate Feedback into TSVWG X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 09:13:51 -0000 James, At the most basic level, I need help and I need to see reviews posted to the list. At the moment, since you are personally involved in some drafts this leaves me very exposed and this leaves us without an "RSVP" Chair. I think the directorate can help fix this. We seem to be still working out the ways the directorate can help. Here is what I think can be done, suggestions welcome: 1) If I were to see several sets of detailed comments, a few reviews of the wording and scope of sections, promises to review in the WG and contribute to WGLC, etc - My recommendation to the ADs would be much clearer. I have so far, seen one review from the directorate from Bruce Davie (thanks). I can post my notes to the directorate to restore synchronisation and see if others have more to add, if this helps. 2) I did make a list of questions that I'd like the directorate to help answer (David Harrington also posted a list). Answers to well-chosen questions would be extremely helpful in deciding whether to progress a draft. I would be happy to attempt to merge the list of questions and repost them - checking first with our ADs. 3) I didn't see much discussion on RSVP on the list in the last period, nor substantive "improvements" in the drafts - I can see this may mostly easily follow (1,2) above. 4) If the directorate/WG would like, it is possible we could formulate a more formal set of requirements for progression of an I-D along the lines you hint at below. You should not be surprised that I'd generally agree with what you say: 5 reviews would be great, promises that reviews would be provided (and NiT lists) to the WG and at WGLC would also seem very helpful. To me, I don't think this means you need to prove the spec is implementable/interoperable when it is standardised (as I recall, SCTP-advocates said they liked this approach, and that worked for them, which I liked). I'd weight heavily any interop experience and would attach value customer/service provider reviews and requirements. But personally, I'd recommend another go at (1,2,3) before we reach this stage (4) - the results of a formal process are of course easier to see and to appeal should you need, they are however likely to be binding and inflexible. James/directorate do let me know your thoughts and we can move forward. Gorry On 01/11/2010 23:58, James M. Polk wrote: > Bruce > > Thanks for responding so quickly. Part of my reaction was to what the > ADs said in Maastricht during TSVWG, that they had no input from the > Directorate, and the discussion went downhill from there IMO. Depending > on who you believe, even after listening to the meeting audio, there was > > - mention of the need for two independent implementations in order for > the ADs to agree to have MULTI_TSPEC adopted as a WG item (by one AD); > and > - there was mention of the need for 5 full reviews of any new > RSVP/IntServ based ID before one AD would consider recommending to TSVWG > that they adopt this item (this by the other AD). > > With either one of the above, the bar is set quite high (in fact higher > than I've ever experienced in the IETF). > > Additionally, the discussion of the first topic (needing two > implementations to be considered a WG item) devolved IMO when Randy > Stewart joined the discussion by indicating that this is what he does > for all his SCTP IDs, therefore the practice ought to used for everything. > > No one in the WG agreed to this other than Randy, and in fact, had > several folks stating on the mic this was out of line to ask for (Matt > Mathis, Fred Baker, and Ken Carlberg if memory serves). > > James > > > At 05:55 PM 11/1/2010, Bruce Davie wrote: >> James, >> I have reviewed the multiple tspec draft and I am in favor of its >> adoption (as I think I have said before, and, IIRC, I provided details >> as to why). I think Lixia is also on record as supporting that draft. >> >> I have asked the directorate for feedback a couple of times, and Bob >> Briscoe gave some feedback, which led to me gather more info from you >> as to why these drafts were worthy of consideration. I have provided >> that info to the directorate. >> >> I will craft a more publicly acceptable email for the TSVWG list. But >> I can't speak much more for the directorate than I have done here. >> >> Bruce >> >> >> On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:50 PM, James M. Polk wrote: >> >> > All >> > >> > This is written as both the TSVWG chair and as an individual author >> of several active IDs into TSVWG. >> > >> > As an individual, I didn't think I needed to request this, but I am >> anyway - because I haven't received any feedback from the RSVP >> Directorate to date, and we're 5 days away from the next IETF meeting. >> > >> > I am requesting that the RSVP Directorate review these two IDs >> > >> > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-05.txt >> and >> > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-01.txt >> >> > >> > Are either or both of these IDs worth the effort of the TSVWG to >> take on a WG items (or not)? >> > >> > Lars freely admits that he considers IntServ to be joined with RSVP >> wrt the TSVWG charter. We chairs are crafting text for a charter >> update to reflect that explicitly. >> > >> > The MULTI_TSPEC ID has been presented at every IETF, in TSVWG, since >> San Francisco -- and really was the reason this Directorate formed >> (because the ADs chose to punt the ball wrt whether to allow the >> adoption of this WG item by TSVWG). This Directorate had a BoF of >> sorts in Anaheim, which was well attended and included a lot of >> energy. At issue is that no one from the Directorate provided an ounce >> of input into TSVWG for the next IETF (in Maastricht), and I - as >> chair - haven't heard from any of you since Maastricht on either of >> the documents listed above one way or the other. >> > >> > This is where I put my WG chair hat on, as ask - rather bluntly - >> why there has been zero input into TSVWG even though the Directorate >> charter (if you will) clearly states reviewing RSVP based IDs is the >> purpose of the Directorate, and the fact that there are now two IDs >> sitting in completely limbo awaiting WG input from the Directorate. >> > >> > I realize everyone's time here is quite busy, but these IDs need >> feedback from those chartered to give said feedback. >> > >> > Please response on to this nudge on the TSVWG list. >> > >> > James >> > > > From lixia@cs.ucla.edu Mon Nov 8 19:07:25 2010 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: rsvp-dir@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFC023A6930 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:07:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F8QDIHX-+Y8e for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:07:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A5028C28B for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:07:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 893FA39E80B1; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:07:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e4r6SjgUBZKf; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:07:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-446b.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-446b.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.68.107]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6131E39E80FA; Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:07:34 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Lixia Zhang In-Reply-To: <4CCFD5D4.5000009@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:07:31 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1AF60ABC-97D5-4DE9-BE72-7297B2248797@cs.ucla.edu> References: <201011012250.oA1MoRUu007129@sj-core-3.cisco.com> <201011012358.oA1NwuAA027247@sj-core-2.cisco.com> <4CCFD5D4.5000009@erg.abdn.ac.uk> To: Gorry Fairhurst X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: rsvp-dir@ietf.org, "James M. Polk" Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Getting RSVP Directorate Feedback into TSVWG X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:07:25 -0000 On Nov 2, 2010, at 2:11 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > James, >=20 > At the most basic level, I need help and I need to see reviews posted = to the list. At the moment, since you are personally involved in some = drafts this leaves me very exposed and this leaves us without an "RSVP" = Chair. I think the directorate can help fix this. We seem to be still = working out the ways the directorate can help. >=20 > Here is what I think can be done, suggestions welcome: >=20 > 1) If I were to see several sets of detailed comments, a few reviews = of the wording and scope of sections, promises to review in the WG and = contribute to WGLC, etc - My recommendation to the ADs would be much = clearer. I have so far, seen one review from the directorate from Bruce = Davie (thanks). I can post my notes to the directorate to restore = synchronisation and see if others have more to add, if this helps. >=20 > 2) I did make a list of questions that I'd like the directorate to = help answer (David Harrington also posted a list). Answers to = well-chosen questions would be extremely helpful in deciding whether to = progress a draft. I would be happy to attempt to merge the list of = questions and repost them - checking first with our ADs. >=20 > 3) I didn't see much discussion on RSVP on the list in the last = period, nor substantive "improvements" in the drafts - I can see this = may mostly easily follow (1,2) above. >=20 > 4) If the directorate/WG would like, it is possible we could formulate = a more formal set of requirements for progression of an I-D along the = lines you hint at below. You should not be surprised that I'd generally = agree with what you say: 5 reviews would be great, promises that reviews = would be provided (and NiT lists) to the WG and at WGLC would also seem = very helpful. To me, I don't think this means you need to prove the spec = is implementable/interoperable when it is standardised (as I recall, = SCTP-advocates said they liked this approach, and that worked for them, = which I liked). I'd weight heavily any interop experience and would = attach value customer/service provider reviews and requirements. But = personally, I'd recommend another go at (1,2,3) before we reach this = stage (4) - the results of a formal process are of course easier to see = and to appeal should you need, they are however likely to be binding and = inflexible. >=20 > James/directorate do let me know your thoughts and we can move = forward. >=20 > Gorry catching up email by skipping some WG meetings :( 1/ as Bruce mentioned earlier, I did give my vote earlier (around = Maastricht IETF?) for letting the 2 drafts move forward. I just flipped through the two drafts again, look fine to me in = principle (I admit I did not examine all details). One minor comment is = that carrying multiple TSPEC in RESV makes the router do more work, but = I'm not a router vendor to know whether that is/not an problem (and the = authors do work for a known vendor:) 2/ Gorry mentioned in the above that he and Dave made a list of specific = questions. Would be happy to help answer those questions, but I dont = think I have seen the list (this is the last msg on this threat) Lixia =20 >=20 >=20 > On 01/11/2010 23:58, James M. Polk wrote: >> Bruce >>=20 >> Thanks for responding so quickly. Part of my reaction was to what the >> ADs said in Maastricht during TSVWG, that they had no input from the >> Directorate, and the discussion went downhill from there IMO. = Depending >> on who you believe, even after listening to the meeting audio, there = was >>=20 >> - mention of the need for two independent implementations in order = for >> the ADs to agree to have MULTI_TSPEC adopted as a WG item (by one = AD); >> and >> - there was mention of the need for 5 full reviews of any new >> RSVP/IntServ based ID before one AD would consider recommending to = TSVWG >> that they adopt this item (this by the other AD). >>=20 >> With either one of the above, the bar is set quite high (in fact = higher >> than I've ever experienced in the IETF). >>=20 >> Additionally, the discussion of the first topic (needing two >> implementations to be considered a WG item) devolved IMO when Randy >> Stewart joined the discussion by indicating that this is what he does >> for all his SCTP IDs, therefore the practice ought to used for = everything. >>=20 >> No one in the WG agreed to this other than Randy, and in fact, had >> several folks stating on the mic this was out of line to ask for = (Matt >> Mathis, Fred Baker, and Ken Carlberg if memory serves). >>=20 >> James >>=20 >>=20 >> At 05:55 PM 11/1/2010, Bruce Davie wrote: >>> James, >>> I have reviewed the multiple tspec draft and I am in favor of its >>> adoption (as I think I have said before, and, IIRC, I provided = details >>> as to why). I think Lixia is also on record as supporting that = draft. >>>=20 >>> I have asked the directorate for feedback a couple of times, and Bob >>> Briscoe gave some feedback, which led to me gather more info from = you >>> as to why these drafts were worthy of consideration. I have provided >>> that info to the directorate. >>>=20 >>> I will craft a more publicly acceptable email for the TSVWG list. = But >>> I can't speak much more for the directorate than I have done here. >>>=20 >>> Bruce >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:50 PM, James M. Polk wrote: >>>=20 >>> > All >>> > >>> > This is written as both the TSVWG chair and as an individual = author >>> of several active IDs into TSVWG. >>> > >>> > As an individual, I didn't think I needed to request this, but I = am >>> anyway - because I haven't received any feedback from the RSVP >>> Directorate to date, and we're 5 days away from the next IETF = meeting. >>> > >>> > I am requesting that the RSVP Directorate review these two IDs >>> > >>> > >>> = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspe= c-05.txt >>> and >>> > >>> = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profil= es-01.txt >>>=20 >>> > >>> > Are either or both of these IDs worth the effort of the TSVWG to >>> take on a WG items (or not)? >>> > >>> > Lars freely admits that he considers IntServ to be joined with = RSVP >>> wrt the TSVWG charter. We chairs are crafting text for a charter >>> update to reflect that explicitly. >>> > >>> > The MULTI_TSPEC ID has been presented at every IETF, in TSVWG, = since >>> San Francisco -- and really was the reason this Directorate formed >>> (because the ADs chose to punt the ball wrt whether to allow the >>> adoption of this WG item by TSVWG). This Directorate had a BoF of >>> sorts in Anaheim, which was well attended and included a lot of >>> energy. At issue is that no one from the Directorate provided an = ounce >>> of input into TSVWG for the next IETF (in Maastricht), and I - as >>> chair - haven't heard from any of you since Maastricht on either of >>> the documents listed above one way or the other. >>> > >>> > This is where I put my WG chair hat on, as ask - rather bluntly - >>> why there has been zero input into TSVWG even though the Directorate >>> charter (if you will) clearly states reviewing RSVP based IDs is the >>> purpose of the Directorate, and the fact that there are now two IDs >>> sitting in completely limbo awaiting WG input from the Directorate. >>> > >>> > I realize everyone's time here is quite busy, but these IDs need >>> feedback from those chartered to give said feedback. >>> > >>> > Please response on to this nudge on the TSVWG list. >>> > >>> > James >>> > >>=20 >>=20 >=20