From gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Thu Mar 17 01:40:51 2011 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 1886D3A6806 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:40:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, 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 HbHjF0BNkAFr for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:40:50 -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 DA71F3A6869 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Gorry-Fairhursts-MacBook-Pro.local (fgrpf.plus.com [212.159.18.54]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id p2H8gCLN009636 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:42:12 GMT Message-ID: <4D81C964.4050107@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:42:12 +0000 From: Gorry Fairhurst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsvp-dir@ietf.org 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: "tsv >> \"tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org\"" Subject: [rsvp-dir] Progressing RSVP drafts - heads up! 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: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:40:51 -0000 I'm pleased to see some more interest in the list on the individual drafts for RSVP. I'll check and then send a summary of what reviews I think I have seen. To get RSVP drafts progressed to work group items and finally published, I'll need help from rsvp-dir. I'll send an email tomorrow asking for reviews and reminding people of what I would like to hear about concerning new proposed work items. Gorry From bdavie@cisco.com Thu Mar 17 07:15:46 2011 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 8C5733A693F for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:15:46 -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 4wpHXYWqEfK3 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B133A68AD for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 07:15:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bdavie@cisco.com; l=836; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1300371433; x=1301581033; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=KZ1IlwRkcWNlYw3246/2cKHEyZmHsU+kc1ZG6ABsnm4=; b=Wj0u4wRTPyckMQblel1y5YaACq7VSVUhB1PAWs6rgwRClFIqVTDBwJUf oxcyWm+gJMTtW+MgqSoa++3aZtdiFcIXjJ16YMP3WfS2gX5vmecKTKJIC XbyWt5QDiAzdIXTrNll75nyCy6kqIV6kSG8IgsBTUEQ0ELS6uoqqTHkup 0=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEADK1gU2tJV2a/2dsb2JhbAClTnenb5w4hWMEjF6MQQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,199,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="226510258" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Mar 2011 14:17:09 +0000 Received: from dhcp-161-44-173-105.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-173-105.cisco.com [161.44.173.105]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2HEH8Rk008899; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:17:08 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Bruce Davie In-Reply-To: <4D81C964.4050107@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 10:17:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4A1997CE-5BCF-4C1A-869D-79AB2DDEA3AE@cisco.com> References: <4D81C964.4050107@erg.abdn.ac.uk> To: Gorry Fairhurst X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: "tsv >> \"tsvwg-chairs@tools.ietf.org\"" , rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] Progressing RSVP drafts - heads up! 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: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:15:46 -0000 I know I have sent high level comments about the multi-tspec draft, and = I was hoping to manage a detailed review before Prague - we'll see how = that goes. Bruce On Mar 17, 2011, at 4:42 AM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >=20 > I'm pleased to see some more interest in the list on the individual = drafts for RSVP. >=20 > I'll check and then send a summary of what reviews I think I have = seen. >=20 > To get RSVP drafts progressed to work group items and finally = published, I'll need help from rsvp-dir. I'll send an email tomorrow = asking for reviews and reminding people of what I would like to hear = about concerning new proposed work items. >=20 > Gorry >=20 > _______________________________________________ > rsvp-dir mailing list > rsvp-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir From lberger@labn.net Thu Mar 17 15:14:22 2011 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 772EF3A6B31 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:14:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.078 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.078 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 ECtPmHI5y34H for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9315E3A6B33 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:14:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 21032 invoked by uid 0); 17 Mar 2011 22:15:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2011 22:15:46 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=labn.net; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=iBtWAOI/w3ae4UmgIVifW3ypaMlBkqTc8L0ibu5D9l7r3qvr3SZpIQFmSHmihtD1lXlvdSxdeVIBVoJIs5rTt61ur9vC5P7peREFboepbYm2oe//zcJd4W82yPxi0qZn; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q0LTu-0000rc-Bi; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:15:46 -0600 Message-ID: <4D828811.8040104@labn.net> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:15:45 -0400 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: iana@iana.org X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Cc: tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: [rsvp-dir] missing assignments for integrated services 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: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:14:22 -0000 Hi, It looks like rfc2997 values never made it into http://www.iana.org/assignments/integ-serv/integ-serv.xml. In particular: Service name, service number 6 (Null) Parameter ID, parameter 128 (Null Service TSpec) Lou From jmpolk@cisco.com Fri Mar 18 14:12:29 2011 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 A80763A6A2E; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:12:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.577 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.577 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.022, 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 h+d7hL2FroPm; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:12:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F1983A6A1E; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:12:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=jmpolk@cisco.com; l=1249; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1300482838; x=1301692438; h=message-id:date:to:from:subject:cc:in-reply-to: references:mime-version; bh=/GYFtKt18m7V1sX4J/3n3ZKDA6mR6sGSgqz+1SLehnc=; b=IeJFqCRUpPbzK2GCgQg4EV5R9FaC7/4YMex5NRMd8md7IfPTDSJLfHaA dX4YMvDBTOnbYsr+dNkJx6zTBsdox8HZFtm/BNgCPIGMU+bHX2NU7xSM4 BsECifIpwo8StvKyEW3VsqqgceFwHm1WZvbmjGO7YiEf9t1qD1jtz4yuW M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEAG5og02tJXG+/2dsb2JhbAClcneoBZwUhWMEhTE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,207,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="415966808" Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2011 21:13:57 +0000 Received: from jmpolk-wxp01.cisco.com (rcdn-jmpolk-8711.cisco.com [10.99.80.18]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2ILDvbB009156; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:13:57 GMT Message-Id: <201103182113.p2ILDvbB009156@rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:13:56 -0500 To: Lou Berger , iana@iana.org From: "James M. Polk" In-Reply-To: <4D828811.8040104@labn.net> References: <4D828811.8040104@labn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] missing assignments for integrated services 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: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:12:29 -0000 At 05:15 PM 3/17/2011, Lou Berger wrote: >Hi, > >It looks like rfc2997 values never made it into >http://www.iana.org/assignments/integ-serv/integ-serv.xml. > >In particular: >Service name, service number 6 (Null) >Parameter ID, parameter 128 (Null Service TSpec) Lou I noticed about 2 years ago that there seemed to be a great many IANA assignments missing. I was going to go through all the RSVP and IntServ docs I could find and write up basically the IANA registration section for each in this separate doc (because some don't even have IANA considerations sections in the RFCs). The plan was to officially "update" each RFC that has not had assignments entered into IANA. I haven't gotten close to finishing this task, but not because it is too daunting or tedious, but because other things are frequently more important or I'm fightin` fires at my day job. I still plan on completing this effort. In fact, I have several IDs just coming out of WGLC or with the IESG right now, and that should create enough time for me to write this - hopefully before Quebec or Taiwan. BTW - any missing assignments that anyone is aware of, please let me know. I'll add them into this new doc. James >Lou From Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com Sat Mar 19 00:25:19 2011 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 4FDCF3A6A0D; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:25:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 0nwd3sh0nnFE; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:25:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usaga03-in.huawei.com (usaga03-in.huawei.com [206.16.17.220]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FEC3A6A20; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 00:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (usaga03-in [172.18.4.17]) by usaga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LIA00GMMNCNOA@usaga03-in.huawei.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:26:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 950129200 (customer60287.96.ld.cust.t-mobile.co.uk [178.96.235.126]) by usaga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0LIA00J03NCKV2@usaga03-in.huawei.com>; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:26:47 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:26:40 +0000 From: Adrian Farrel In-reply-to: <201103182113.p2ILDvbB009156@rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com> To: "'James M. Polk'" , 'Lou Berger' , iana@iana.org Message-id: <021501cbe607$014d8c10$03e8a430$@huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en-gb Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AQIaeFz2Sqf0dACrJovoYb/A7wWG6ADyzRDpk4+V9CA= References: <4D828811.8040104@labn.net> <201103182113.p2ILDvbB009156@rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com> Cc: tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] missing assignments for integrated services X-BeenThere: rsvp-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com List-Id: RSVP directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:25:19 -0000 Thanks James, I tried this a couple of times over the years using emails to IANA, but it looks like your approach is much more likely to be successful : one draft, one IANA section. Many thanks. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: rsvp-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rsvp-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of James M. Polk > Sent: 18 March 2011 21:14 > To: Lou Berger; iana@iana.org > Cc: tsvwg-chairs@ietf.org; rsvp-dir@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] missing assignments for integrated services > > At 05:15 PM 3/17/2011, Lou Berger wrote: > >Hi, > > > >It looks like rfc2997 values never made it into > >http://www.iana.org/assignments/integ-serv/integ-serv.xml. > > > >In particular: > >Service name, service number 6 (Null) > >Parameter ID, parameter 128 (Null Service TSpec) > > Lou > > I noticed about 2 years ago that there seemed to be a great many IANA > assignments missing. I was going to go through all the RSVP and > IntServ docs I could find and write up basically the IANA > registration section for each in this separate doc (because some > don't even have IANA considerations sections in the RFCs). The plan > was to officially "update" each RFC that has not had assignments > entered into IANA. > > I haven't gotten close to finishing this task, but not because it is > too daunting or tedious, but because other things are frequently more > important or I'm fightin` fires at my day job. > > I still plan on completing this effort. In fact, I have several IDs > just coming out of WGLC or with the IESG right now, and that should > create enough time for me to write this - hopefully before Quebec or Taiwan. > > BTW - any missing assignments that anyone is aware of, please let me > know. I'll add them into this new doc. > > James > > > >Lou > > _______________________________________________ > rsvp-dir mailing list > rsvp-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir From gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Tue Mar 22 01:36:27 2011 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 6D85B3A67AA for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:36:27 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 J+tA6dMZdzUH for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:36:24 -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 2C2173A67A1 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ra-gorry.erg.abdn.ac.uk (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 p2M8bkeD016347 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:37:46 GMT Message-ID: <4D885FDA.8060700@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:37:46 +0000 From: Gorry Fairhurst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsvp-dir@ietf.org 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 Subject: [rsvp-dir] DRAFTS BEING DISCUSSED BY RSVP-DIR (updated 21-Mar-2011) 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, 22 Mar 2011 08:36:27 -0000 You should be receiving this member of the RSVP-DIR team. The email records my note on the current drafts referred to RSVP-DIR. There may be things I have missed, the activity appears to be on a slow-burn, but recently I've seen comments on the tsvwg list on one of these drafts, so maybe now is a good time to see if more people willing to step-up as reviewers. I have a meeting with ADs on Monday 28th March, where I'll report status and try to determine whether we can advance any of this work within TSVWG. * draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06 RSVP-dir reviews requested 8/7/2010 (reminder 27/7/10) Commitment to review future versions of the draft: None currently Reviews: Bruce Davie - detailed review 8/7/2010 Comments: Francois 26/03/2009 (pre-directorate) Lou Berger - questions on approach. 17/3/2011 Ken Carlberg 16/3/2011 Notes of support: (with no comments) Scott Bradner 16/3/2011 Lixia Zhang 31/7/2010 Fred Baker 16/3/2011 Adrian Farrel 19/3/2011 * draft-lefaucheur-tsvwg-rsvp-multiple-preemption-02.txt RSVP-dir reviews requested 8/7/2010 (reminder 27/7/10) Commitment to review future versions of the draft: None currently Reviews: Bruce Davie - detailed review 8/7/2010 Comments: Bob Briscoe (pre-directorate) Notes of support: (with no comments) Lixia Zhang 31/7/2010 * draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing-02 RSVP-dir reviews requested 8/7/2010 (reminder 27/7/10) The bulk of the work in this ID is to progress in CCAMP WG. Commitment to review future versions of the draft: None currently Reviews: Bruce Davie - detailed review 8/7/2010 Notes of support: (with no comments) Lixia Zhang 31/7/2010 - My current thoughts are that there seems to be interest within the RSVP community and that these remain potential working group work items, however I've not yet seen the level of review I'd hoped for, and specifically I do not have on record any names of people who promise to track progress of the drafts and offer detailed comments when needed. This is one thing I will before I support these being adopted. I'm attaching below the (updated) list of questions that Bruce responded to in July - his responses were really useful - would more people from the directorate also offer their own answers? Thanks and best wishes, Gorry TSVWG Co-Chair (Tom is a co-author on one of these drafts) --- RSVP-DIR Review Information --- For each draft, the sort of things I'm interested as a Chair are: * Have you personally reviewed the document in detail: Are there any areas that are less mature than others from a technical point of view: Can you see sections that would need more work? Are there missing sections? * Does the WG need to do this? Why? * Is this a change to the base specification: Does this seem to update IntServ? * What specs would this draft update: Will it update another draft or RFC? Is there related work in another WG? * What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is this trying to solve? * What class of application will benefit if your draft becomes a standard? (Do you know of indications that there may be a "customer" for this specific technology: e.g. another working group? need to support an application? have vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? etc?) * Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better/worse. * Would you as a member of the directorate volunteer to comment on progress of this draft and also commit to personally review the final versions of the document as we get to WGLC? (We'll need several people for each WG draft.) * Do you know of other things that may help the chairs understand whether the WG should devote energy to this draft? --- END RSVP-DIR Review Information --- From bdavie@cisco.com Wed Mar 30 00:56:16 2011 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 E5EED3A6B10 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:56:16 -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 2hg5yRci64CW for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:56:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D5A3A6A98 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:56:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bdavie@cisco.com; l=2125; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301471874; x=1302681474; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: cc:to:mime-version; bh=apX/8dOAf+wAJKNzlVNkEQt3Gmtn7fpJVFDecXcmyHk=; b=CBsZTlS6AzoKQpjXHPcKRyCPJJTWzUhO5kmrNTnNILrePVIu2xu0+vsF kKV61gKT5huWNbM5j/mBNZG4Ci2BpW8yivVimwA4ZPJKTsZhMTdhkfo7z 9B0DhCU8/Phv50DtN1nHDeunU6yQjSMyrK1KbZTYUE9Bg1UF6uSyebD8W o=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvoHALHhkk2rRDoG/2dsb2JhbACYUIx8d6BqnEyFagSNBg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,267,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="327256571" Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2011 07:57:54 +0000 Received: from sjc-vpnasa1-98.cisco.com (sjc-vpnasa1-98.cisco.com [10.21.104.98]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2U7vrk2024190; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:57:53 GMT From: Bruce Davie Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 03:57:52 -0400 Message-Id: To: rsvp-dir@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: tsvwg-ads@tools.ietf.org Subject: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews 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: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:56:17 -0000 I met with the TSV ADs on Monday and we talked about how we might make = more progress with the RSVP-related drafts that are coming through = TSVWG. As you know, the directorate has not to date produced many = reviews of the drafts, and the ADs really would like to see more = reviews, and promises to review mature drafts, in order to feel = confident that the drafts are worth the time and attention of the WG. = So, first of all, I'd like to respectfully ask the Directorate members = to step up and commit to reviewing these drafts. The 2 drafts that need = attention right now are: draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06.txt draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02.txt Many of you have spoken in favor of the former, but AFAIK, only Lou and = I have actually provided detailed reviews. Could I ask for one or two = more reviewers? Even a promise of a review would be nice. For the record, I will also review the second draft. To spread the load around, we should be trying to find people outside = the directorate who can do reviews. I have asked Ken Carlberg; can any = of you think of, or find, others who might do reviews? If we want to = keep RSVP standards in the IETF, we really need a stable of reviewers. Finally, David Harrington asked me to draw up some review guidelines, so = here is my attempt to do that. A review should address why (or whether) the draft warrants the = attention of TSVWG. That justification should cover the following points = to the extent possible: - What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is the draft trying to solve? - What class of application will benefit if the draft becomes a = standard? - Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think = there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better. - What new capability will we have if this draft becomes a standard? - What community of users will benefit from this work? In addition, the review should sanity-check the draft for technical = correctness in terms of its relationship to the RSVP and Intserv = specifications.=20 Thanks. Bruce Davie From lberger@labn.net Wed Mar 30 05:45:54 2011 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 C04523A68F8 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:45:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.081 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.184, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 BhOiD4bkDB0U for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:45:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (cpoproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.38]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 93DC83A6982 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 14803 invoked by uid 0); 30 Mar 2011 12:47:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by cpoproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2011 12:47:31 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=labn.net; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=ptsxVWKOut8KAC4tQUmXLsR+xhHlnUS8glSF4MV64wJr3A8SzkO0wsTDcs01ZkCza+iARDlnLmiEALxVFMvt6HapYxjiz/Sad/94EQLLGTZ+ONCGboJpvl6hSFDnf7uJ; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4uo7-0004Va-8p; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:47:31 -0600 Message-ID: <4D93265E.2060703@labn.net> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:47:26 +0200 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Davie References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Cc: tsvwg-ads@tools.ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews 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: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:45:54 -0000 Bruce/Dave, First let me say that review is goodness and I have no issues with providing input on the suitability for *acceptance* as a WG document based on technical review. But I'm left with a couple of questions: 1) It sounds like you are expecting a non-technical / market review of the drafts by the rsvp-dir. Is this correct? 2) What work / input do you expect from the WG before a LC is issued for a document that has gone through the described process? Much thanks, Lou On 3/30/2011 9:57 AM, Bruce Davie wrote: > I met with the TSV ADs on Monday and we talked about how we might make more progress with the RSVP-related drafts that are coming through TSVWG. As you know, the directorate has not to date produced many reviews of the drafts, and the ADs really would like to see more reviews, and promises to review mature drafts, in order to feel confident that the drafts are worth the time and attention of the WG. So, first of all, I'd like to respectfully ask the Directorate members to step up and commit to reviewing these drafts. The 2 drafts that need attention right now are: > > draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06.txt > draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02.txt > > Many of you have spoken in favor of the former, but AFAIK, only Lou and I have actually provided detailed reviews. Could I ask for one or two more reviewers? Even a promise of a review would be nice. > > For the record, I will also review the second draft. > > To spread the load around, we should be trying to find people outside the directorate who can do reviews. I have asked Ken Carlberg; can any of you think of, or find, others who might do reviews? If we want to keep RSVP standards in the IETF, we really need a stable of reviewers. > > Finally, David Harrington asked me to draw up some review guidelines, so here is my attempt to do that. > > A review should address why (or whether) the draft warrants the attention of TSVWG. That justification should cover the following points to the extent possible: > - What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is the draft trying to solve? > - What class of application will benefit if the draft becomes a standard? > - Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better. > - What new capability will we have if this draft becomes a standard? > - What community of users will benefit from this work? > > In addition, the review should sanity-check the draft for technical correctness in terms of its relationship to the RSVP and Intserv specifications. > > Thanks. > > Bruce Davie > > > > _______________________________________________ > rsvp-dir mailing list > rsvp-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir > > > > From bdavie@cisco.com Wed Mar 30 09:34:38 2011 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 B032D3A6B8C for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:34:38 -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 Mf45p+htgtNO for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB70E3A6A49 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:34:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=bdavie@cisco.com; l=3907; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301502974; x=1302712574; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=wO5SW2GJKoKXjKsBoawKn6Rup5zUBqw8XjZuy6jT5ws=; b=izqPlrhPlwxOvzRW+4/1Gs7wtyZMBhxhvvZ6/hlRT4O2qoanX4BkggzW 5eq7VW81jF5/2JH6JQPd13xFvfLOjJABDOfFW1YUrqJRBEpXwPnNAIW21 PUwqQGn0uSC9msCfcEx3wctXF1NchnGzovM4InE1codoMlWOe3BoJvheA E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEALBak02rRDoJ/2dsb2JhbAClUneIeZg4nGGFagSNBg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,269,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="421035344" Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2011 16:36:13 +0000 Received: from bxb-vpn3-623.cisco.com (bxb-vpn3-623.cisco.com [10.86.250.111]) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2UGaCMi000800; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:36:13 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Bruce Davie In-Reply-To: <4D93265E.2060703@labn.net> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:36:14 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0032A84F-8088-4855-BB4A-02AB9DAEE5F7@cisco.com> References: <4D93265E.2060703@labn.net> To: Lou Berger X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Cc: tsvwg-ads@tools.ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews 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: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:34:39 -0000 On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > Bruce/Dave, > First let me say that review is goodness and I have no issues = with > providing input on the suitability for *acceptance* as a WG document > based on technical review. But I'm left with a couple of questions: >=20 > 1) It sounds like you are expecting a non-technical / market review of > the drafts by the rsvp-dir. Is this correct? I would tend to say that the review guidelines I wrote are trying to get = at 2 key issues: - does this draft tackle a problem worth solving? - does it do so in a technically correct way? So, no, I don't really view this as a non-technical review. But the = first question has some not-totally-technical aspects, I guess. >=20 > 2) What work / input do you expect from the WG before a LC is issued = for > a document that has gone through the described process? David (or Gorry) should maybe answer this, but I think they are looking = for adequate review from *somewhere*, either the directorate (which = contains a lot of RSVP experts) or other WG members (which is the reason = I was asking the directorate to try to recruit more reviewers). It seems to me that the ADs & Chairs are looking for a pretty large = number of reviews even before adopting the draft as a WG item, which = should mean that any adopted draft should be in fairly good shape. Bruce >=20 > Much thanks, > Lou >=20 > On 3/30/2011 9:57 AM, Bruce Davie wrote: >> I met with the TSV ADs on Monday and we talked about how we might = make more progress with the RSVP-related drafts that are coming through = TSVWG. As you know, the directorate has not to date produced many = reviews of the drafts, and the ADs really would like to see more = reviews, and promises to review mature drafts, in order to feel = confident that the drafts are worth the time and attention of the WG. = So, first of all, I'd like to respectfully ask the Directorate members = to step up and commit to reviewing these drafts. The 2 drafts that need = attention right now are: >>=20 >> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06.txt >> draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02.txt >>=20 >> Many of you have spoken in favor of the former, but AFAIK, only Lou = and I have actually provided detailed reviews. Could I ask for one or = two more reviewers? Even a promise of a review would be nice. >>=20 >> For the record, I will also review the second draft. >>=20 >> To spread the load around, we should be trying to find people outside = the directorate who can do reviews. I have asked Ken Carlberg; can any = of you think of, or find, others who might do reviews? If we want to = keep RSVP standards in the IETF, we really need a stable of reviewers. >>=20 >> Finally, David Harrington asked me to draw up some review guidelines, = so here is my attempt to do that. >>=20 >> A review should address why (or whether) the draft warrants the = attention of TSVWG. That justification should cover the following points = to the extent possible: >> - What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is the draft trying to = solve? >> - What class of application will benefit if the draft becomes a = standard? >> - Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think = there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better. >> - What new capability will we have if this draft becomes a standard? >> - What community of users will benefit from this work? >>=20 >> In addition, the review should sanity-check the draft for technical = correctness in terms of its relationship to the RSVP and Intserv = specifications.=20 >>=20 >> Thanks. >>=20 >> Bruce Davie >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> rsvp-dir mailing list >> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 From lberger@labn.net Wed Mar 30 15:01:30 2011 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 7905A3A6AC7 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:01:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.092 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 849XgdZOc6o4 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F22C3A6A93 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:01:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 21253 invoked by uid 0); 30 Mar 2011 22:03:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2011 22:03:07 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=labn.net; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=HqovKvQaeBnh9k3TJ5/vpY475RhDzYTAsy20IqTkUK11lPrpxpHGb1zXsKt/sivK8so5oRUtebzjeriv8tN5S1r6sRYrgiO7yEmE5CtXJgR5rTh2b+2JNhv4IpetPvS/; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q53Pq-0005b1-LP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:59:03 -0600 Message-ID: <4D93A7A2.3010006@labn.net> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:58:58 +0200 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Davie References: <4D93265E.2060703@labn.net> <0032A84F-8088-4855-BB4A-02AB9DAEE5F7@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <0032A84F-8088-4855-BB4A-02AB9DAEE5F7@cisco.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Cc: tsvwg-ads@tools.ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews 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: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:01:30 -0000 Bruce, Your response is reasonable. I'd still like to hear from the WG chairs on question 2 though. Lou On 3/30/2011 6:36 PM, Bruce Davie wrote: > > On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > >> Bruce/Dave, >> First let me say that review is goodness and I have no issues with >> providing input on the suitability for *acceptance* as a WG document >> based on technical review. But I'm left with a couple of questions: >> >> 1) It sounds like you are expecting a non-technical / market review of >> the drafts by the rsvp-dir. Is this correct? > > I would tend to say that the review guidelines I wrote are trying to get at 2 key issues: > - does this draft tackle a problem worth solving? > - does it do so in a technically correct way? > > So, no, I don't really view this as a non-technical review. But the first question has some not-totally-technical aspects, I guess. > >> >> 2) What work / input do you expect from the WG before a LC is issued for >> a document that has gone through the described process? > > David (or Gorry) should maybe answer this, but I think they are looking for adequate review from *somewhere*, either the directorate (which contains a lot of RSVP experts) or other WG members (which is the reason I was asking the directorate to try to recruit more reviewers). > > It seems to me that the ADs & Chairs are looking for a pretty large number of reviews even before adopting the draft as a WG item, which should mean that any adopted draft should be in fairly good shape. > > Bruce > >> >> Much thanks, >> Lou >> >> On 3/30/2011 9:57 AM, Bruce Davie wrote: >>> I met with the TSV ADs on Monday and we talked about how we might make more progress with the RSVP-related drafts that are coming through TSVWG. As you know, the directorate has not to date produced many reviews of the drafts, and the ADs really would like to see more reviews, and promises to review mature drafts, in order to feel confident that the drafts are worth the time and attention of the WG. So, first of all, I'd like to respectfully ask the Directorate members to step up and commit to reviewing these drafts. The 2 drafts that need attention right now are: >>> >>> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06.txt >>> draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02.txt >>> >>> Many of you have spoken in favor of the former, but AFAIK, only Lou and I have actually provided detailed reviews. Could I ask for one or two more reviewers? Even a promise of a review would be nice. >>> >>> For the record, I will also review the second draft. >>> >>> To spread the load around, we should be trying to find people outside the directorate who can do reviews. I have asked Ken Carlberg; can any of you think of, or find, others who might do reviews? If we want to keep RSVP standards in the IETF, we really need a stable of reviewers. >>> >>> Finally, David Harrington asked me to draw up some review guidelines, so here is my attempt to do that. >>> >>> A review should address why (or whether) the draft warrants the attention of TSVWG. That justification should cover the following points to the extent possible: >>> - What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is the draft trying to solve? >>> - What class of application will benefit if the draft becomes a standard? >>> - Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better. >>> - What new capability will we have if this draft becomes a standard? >>> - What community of users will benefit from this work? >>> >>> In addition, the review should sanity-check the draft for technical correctness in terms of its relationship to the RSVP and Intserv specifications. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Bruce Davie >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rsvp-dir mailing list >>> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > > > From bob.briscoe@bt.com Thu Mar 31 01:56:43 2011 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 9D21728C11B for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:56:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] 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 QPNQpl9I5RhE for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:56:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp1.smtp.bt.com (smtp1.smtp.bt.com [217.32.164.137]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DBF28C0F1 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net ([193.113.197.71]) by smtp1.smtp.bt.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:58:20 +0100 Received: from cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com ([147.149.100.81]) by i2kc08-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:58:20 +0100 Received: From bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk ([132.146.168.158]) by cbibipnt08.iuser.iroot.adidom.com (WebShield SMTP v4.5 MR1a P0803.399); id 1301561899405; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:58:19 +0100 Received: from MUT.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.73.129.212]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id p2V8wH8Y023340; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:58:17 +0100 Message-Id: <201103310858.p2V8wH8Y023340@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:58:14 +0100 To: Bruce Davie From: Bob Briscoe In-Reply-To: <0032A84F-8088-4855-BB4A-02AB9DAEE5F7@cisco.com> References: <4D93265E.2060703@labn.net> <0032A84F-8088-4855-BB4A-02AB9DAEE5F7@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2011 08:58:20.0985 (UTC) FILETIME=[C8DBAA90:01CBEF81] Cc: tsvwg-ads@tools.ietf.org, rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews 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: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 08:56:43 -0000 Bruce, I have detailed pen-written reviews of: - rsvp-multiple-preemption-02 (still at 02) - intserv-multiple-tspec-03 (now at 06) Back in Sep'11, I should have said I have to go into background mode regarding IETF activities for a few months. Since, loads of stuff has backed up due to personal & work issues outside my control. I'm out of the end of the tunnel now, and eating up the front of the queue so that the queue length is now shrinking, but... Typing these reviews up is now way down my priority stack. If taking paper copies away from Prague would be useful, I can offer that at least. No-one will be able to understand my scrawlings, but... Bob At 17:36 30/03/2011, Bruce Davie wrote: >On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Lou Berger wrote: > > > Bruce/Dave, > > First let me say that review is goodness and I have no issues with > > providing input on the suitability for *acceptance* as a WG document > > based on technical review. But I'm left with a couple of questions: > > > > 1) It sounds like you are expecting a non-technical / market review of > > the drafts by the rsvp-dir. Is this correct? > >I would tend to say that the review guidelines I wrote are trying to >get at 2 key issues: > - does this draft tackle a problem worth solving? > - does it do so in a technically correct way? > >So, no, I don't really view this as a non-technical review. But the >first question has some not-totally-technical aspects, I guess. > > > > > 2) What work / input do you expect from the WG before a LC is issued for > > a document that has gone through the described process? > >David (or Gorry) should maybe answer this, but I think they are >looking for adequate review from *somewhere*, either the directorate >(which contains a lot of RSVP experts) or other WG members (which is >the reason I was asking the directorate to try to recruit more reviewers). > >It seems to me that the ADs & Chairs are looking for a pretty large >number of reviews even before adopting the draft as a WG item, which >should mean that any adopted draft should be in fairly good shape. > >Bruce > > > > > Much thanks, > > Lou > > > > On 3/30/2011 9:57 AM, Bruce Davie wrote: > >> I met with the TSV ADs on Monday and we talked about how we > might make more progress with the RSVP-related drafts that are > coming through TSVWG. As you know, the directorate has not to date > produced many reviews of the drafts, and the ADs really would like > to see more reviews, and promises to review mature drafts, in order > to feel confident that the drafts are worth the time and attention > of the WG. So, first of all, I'd like to respectfully ask the > Directorate members to step up and commit to reviewing these > drafts. The 2 drafts that need attention right now are: > >> > >> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06.txt > >> draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02.txt > >> > >> Many of you have spoken in favor of the former, but AFAIK, only > Lou and I have actually provided detailed reviews. Could I ask for > one or two more reviewers? Even a promise of a review would be nice. > >> > >> For the record, I will also review the second draft. > >> > >> To spread the load around, we should be trying to find people > outside the directorate who can do reviews. I have asked Ken > Carlberg; can any of you think of, or find, others who might do > reviews? If we want to keep RSVP standards in the IETF, we really > need a stable of reviewers. > >> > >> Finally, David Harrington asked me to draw up some review > guidelines, so here is my attempt to do that. > >> > >> A review should address why (or whether) the draft warrants the > attention of TSVWG. That justification should cover the following > points to the extent possible: > >> - What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is the draft trying to solve? > >> - What class of application will benefit if the draft becomes a standard? > >> - Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone > think there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better. > >> - What new capability will we have if this draft becomes a standard? > >> - What community of users will benefit from this work? > >> > >> In addition, the review should sanity-check the draft for > technical correctness in terms of its relationship to the RSVP and > Intserv specifications. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Bruce Davie > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> rsvp-dir mailing list > >> rsvp-dir@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir > >> > >> > >> > >> > >_______________________________________________ >rsvp-dir mailing list >rsvp-dir@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir ________________________________________________________________ Bob Briscoe, BT Innovate & Design From gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Thu Mar 31 06:34:33 2011 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 7AC8B3A6B0E for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:34:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.41 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 x-vOOniBWbhA for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:34:32 -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 C965A3A6B13 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 06:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ra-gorry.erg.abdn.ac.uk ([IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:5ab0:35ff:fe7b:b828]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id p2VDZxaq029576 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:36:00 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4D94833F.7040605@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:35:59 +0200 From: Gorry Fairhurst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rsvp-dir@ietf.org, Bruce Davie , "tsvwg-ads@tools.ietf.org" References: <4D93265E.2060703@labn.net> <0032A84F-8088-4855-BB4A-02AB9DAEE5F7@cisco.com> <4D93A7A2.3010006@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <4D93A7A2.3010006@labn.net> 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 Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews 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: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 13:34:33 -0000 So more on Q2. I expect these things: - Keeping-up with revs and comments/wisdom as the draft proceeds, but this is "normal" for any WG document. - Specific people to sign-up for a detailed review of the protocol spec at the time when the Authors say this is nearly finish. - Specific people to sign-up for a detailed review when the Chair starts the WGLC process. I see completeness as a specific issue, especially when there has been no tradition of multi-vendor testing for this topic. - Advice form the directorate as requested by the Chair during IETF LC or IESG Discusses. There have been suggestions for a checklist for RSVP WGLC. I think this would be good and I would support such a list. However, there is no current push for this as a WG Chair. My best choice would be to try to make the "process" work, rather than seeking to perfect the rules. Gorry P.S. I'd expect the motivation for the document and case for why the work is needed to already be captured from (1) - and I will copy some of this directly into the Shepherd Review document after WGLC. On 30/03/2011 23:58, Lou Berger wrote: > Bruce, > Your response is reasonable. I'd still like to hear from the WG chairs > on question 2 though. > > Lou > > On 3/30/2011 6:36 PM, Bruce Davie wrote: >> >> On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Lou Berger wrote: >> >>> Bruce/Dave, >>> First let me say that review is goodness and I have no issues with >>> providing input on the suitability for *acceptance* as a WG document >>> based on technical review. But I'm left with a couple of questions: >>> >>> 1) It sounds like you are expecting a non-technical / market review of >>> the drafts by the rsvp-dir. Is this correct? >> >> I would tend to say that the review guidelines I wrote are trying to get at 2 key issues: >> - does this draft tackle a problem worth solving? >> - does it do so in a technically correct way? >> >> So, no, I don't really view this as a non-technical review. But the first question has some not-totally-technical aspects, I guess. >> >>> >>> 2) What work / input do you expect from the WG before a LC is issued for >>> a document that has gone through the described process? >> >> David (or Gorry) should maybe answer this, but I think they are looking for adequate review from *somewhere*, either the directorate (which contains a lot of RSVP experts) or other WG members (which is the reason I was asking the directorate to try to recruit more reviewers). >> >> It seems to me that the ADs& Chairs are looking for a pretty large number of reviews even before adopting the draft as a WG item, which should mean that any adopted draft should be in fairly good shape. >> >> Bruce >> >>> >>> Much thanks, >>> Lou >>> >>> On 3/30/2011 9:57 AM, Bruce Davie wrote: >>>> I met with the TSV ADs on Monday and we talked about how we might make more progress with the RSVP-related drafts that are coming through TSVWG. As you know, the directorate has not to date produced many reviews of the drafts, and the ADs really would like to see more reviews, and promises to review mature drafts, in order to feel confident that the drafts are worth the time and attention of the WG. So, first of all, I'd like to respectfully ask the Directorate members to step up and commit to reviewing these drafts. The 2 drafts that need attention right now are: >>>> >>>> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06.txt >>>> draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02.txt >>>> >>>> Many of you have spoken in favor of the former, but AFAIK, only Lou and I have actually provided detailed reviews. Could I ask for one or two more reviewers? Even a promise of a review would be nice. >>>> >>>> For the record, I will also review the second draft. >>>> >>>> To spread the load around, we should be trying to find people outside the directorate who can do reviews. I have asked Ken Carlberg; can any of you think of, or find, others who might do reviews? If we want to keep RSVP standards in the IETF, we really need a stable of reviewers. >>>> >>>> Finally, David Harrington asked me to draw up some review guidelines, so here is my attempt to do that. >>>> >>>> A review should address why (or whether) the draft warrants the attention of TSVWG. That justification should cover the following points to the extent possible: >>>> - What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is the draft trying to solve? >>>> - What class of application will benefit if the draft becomes a standard? >>>> - Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better. >>>> - What new capability will we have if this draft becomes a standard? >>>> - What community of users will benefit from this work? >>>> >>>> In addition, the review should sanity-check the draft for technical correctness in terms of its relationship to the RSVP and Intserv specifications. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> Bruce Davie >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rsvp-dir mailing list >>>> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > rsvp-dir mailing list > rsvp-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir > > From lberger@labn.net Thu Mar 31 09:36:19 2011 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 EA8A428B797 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:36:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.163, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 xiylxpJN3MKK for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy2-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.39.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9FB8E3A6844 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 18411 invoked by uid 0); 31 Mar 2011 16:37:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy2.bluehost.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2011 16:37:56 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=labn.net; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Enigmail-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Identified-User; b=14bAIm+5Lfb8FogWci7bLdFqLuX9Nzj59M7gVhdr86ERuF118FPCVyhtoYfE8R6UARu616dK/F9HpZEm9vdUprz56xrnBhtx8Vsan26yvT0Q2SAgwZBswv6nqkxnQAyz; Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5Ksd-0002kC-Mi; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:37:56 -0600 Message-ID: <4D94ADDE.20606@labn.net> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:37:50 +0200 From: Lou Berger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gorry Fairhurst References: <4D93265E.2060703@labn.net> <0032A84F-8088-4855-BB4A-02AB9DAEE5F7@cisco.com> <4D93A7A2.3010006@labn.net> <4D94833F.7040605@erg.abdn.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <4D94833F.7040605@erg.abdn.ac.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net} Cc: "tsvwg-ads@tools.ietf.org" , rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews 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: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:36:20 -0000 Gory, Much thanks for the response. Was your response covering rtg-dir work/input or WG work/input? Note my question related to the latter. Much thanks, Lou On 3/31/2011 3:35 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: > So more on Q2. > > I expect these things: > > - Keeping-up with revs and comments/wisdom as the draft proceeds, but > this is "normal" for any WG document. > > - Specific people to sign-up for a detailed review of the protocol spec > at the time when the Authors say this is nearly finish. > > - Specific people to sign-up for a detailed review when the Chair starts > the WGLC process. I see completeness as a specific issue, especially > when there has been no tradition of multi-vendor testing for this topic. > > - Advice form the directorate as requested by the Chair during IETF LC > or IESG Discusses. > > There have been suggestions for a checklist for RSVP WGLC. I think this > would be good and I would support such a list. However, there is no > current push for this as a WG Chair. My best choice would be to try to > make the "process" work, rather than seeking to perfect the rules. > > Gorry > > P.S. I'd expect the motivation for the document and case for why the > work is needed to already be captured from (1) - and I will copy some of > this directly into the Shepherd Review document after WGLC. > > On 30/03/2011 23:58, Lou Berger wrote: >> Bruce, >> Your response is reasonable. I'd still like to hear from the WG chairs >> on question 2 though. >> >> Lou >> >> On 3/30/2011 6:36 PM, Bruce Davie wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Lou Berger wrote: >>> >>>> Bruce/Dave, >>>> First let me say that review is goodness and I have no issues with >>>> providing input on the suitability for *acceptance* as a WG document >>>> based on technical review. But I'm left with a couple of questions: >>>> >>>> 1) It sounds like you are expecting a non-technical / market review of >>>> the drafts by the rsvp-dir. Is this correct? >>> >>> I would tend to say that the review guidelines I wrote are trying to get at 2 key issues: >>> - does this draft tackle a problem worth solving? >>> - does it do so in a technically correct way? >>> >>> So, no, I don't really view this as a non-technical review. But the first question has some not-totally-technical aspects, I guess. >>> >>>> >>>> 2) What work / input do you expect from the WG before a LC is issued for >>>> a document that has gone through the described process? >>> >>> David (or Gorry) should maybe answer this, but I think they are looking for adequate review from *somewhere*, either the directorate (which contains a lot of RSVP experts) or other WG members (which is the reason I was asking the directorate to try to recruit more reviewers). >>> >>> It seems to me that the ADs& Chairs are looking for a pretty large number of reviews even before adopting the draft as a WG item, which should mean that any adopted draft should be in fairly good shape. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>>> >>>> Much thanks, >>>> Lou >>>> >>>> On 3/30/2011 9:57 AM, Bruce Davie wrote: >>>>> I met with the TSV ADs on Monday and we talked about how we might make more progress with the RSVP-related drafts that are coming through TSVWG. As you know, the directorate has not to date produced many reviews of the drafts, and the ADs really would like to see more reviews, and promises to review mature drafts, in order to feel confident that the drafts are worth the time and attention of the WG. So, first of all, I'd like to respectfully ask the Directorate members to step up and commit to reviewing these drafts. The 2 drafts that need attention right now are: >>>>> >>>>> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06.txt >>>>> draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02.txt >>>>> >>>>> Many of you have spoken in favor of the former, but AFAIK, only Lou and I have actually provided detailed reviews. Could I ask for one or two more reviewers? Even a promise of a review would be nice. >>>>> >>>>> For the record, I will also review the second draft. >>>>> >>>>> To spread the load around, we should be trying to find people outside the directorate who can do reviews. I have asked Ken Carlberg; can any of you think of, or find, others who might do reviews? If we want to keep RSVP standards in the IETF, we really need a stable of reviewers. >>>>> >>>>> Finally, David Harrington asked me to draw up some review guidelines, so here is my attempt to do that. >>>>> >>>>> A review should address why (or whether) the draft warrants the attention of TSVWG. That justification should cover the following points to the extent possible: >>>>> - What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is the draft trying to solve? >>>>> - What class of application will benefit if the draft becomes a standard? >>>>> - Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better. >>>>> - What new capability will we have if this draft becomes a standard? >>>>> - What community of users will benefit from this work? >>>>> >>>>> In addition, the review should sanity-check the draft for technical correctness in terms of its relationship to the RSVP and Intserv specifications. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce Davie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rsvp-dir mailing list >>>>> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> rsvp-dir mailing list >> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rsvp-dir mailing list > rsvp-dir@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir > > > > From gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Thu Mar 31 09:57:09 2011 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 328A73A6A48 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:57:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.429 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.429 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.171, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 6TcIoNkn3RnQ for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:57:08 -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 7E3333A6A33 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ra-gorry.erg.abdn.ac.uk ([IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:5ab0:35ff:fe7b:b828]) (authenticated bits=0) by erg.abdn.ac.uk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id p2VGwY50003438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:58:34 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4D94B2BA.6070208@erg.abdn.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:58:34 +0200 From: Gorry Fairhurst User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lou Berger References: <4D93265E.2060703@labn.net> <0032A84F-8088-4855-BB4A-02AB9DAEE5F7@cisco.com> <4D93A7A2.3010006@labn.net> <4D94833F.7040605@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <4D94ADDE.20606@labn.net> In-Reply-To: <4D94ADDE.20606@labn.net> 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: "tsvwg-ads@tools.ietf.org" , rsvp-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP Directorate Reviews 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: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:57:09 -0000 My hope was the "specific people" I spoke about could be anyone with relevant experience, e.g. in TSVWG (but I'd hope that RSVP-DIR would step-up if there are no others, that way I'd feel confident the work is completed). I'm not sure whether I deciphered your question correct, you may like to try again. Gorry On 31/03/2011 18:37, Lou Berger wrote: > Gorry, > Much thanks for the response. Was your response covering rtg-dir > work/input or WG work/input? Note my question related to the latter. > > Much thanks, > Lou > > On 3/31/2011 3:35 PM, Gorry Fairhurst wrote: >> So more on Q2. >> >> I expect these things: >> >> - Keeping-up with revs and comments/wisdom as the draft proceeds, but >> this is "normal" for any WG document. >> >> - Specific people to sign-up for a detailed review of the protocol spec >> at the time when the Authors say this is nearly finish. >> >> - Specific people to sign-up for a detailed review when the Chair starts >> the WGLC process. I see completeness as a specific issue, especially >> when there has been no tradition of multi-vendor testing for this topic. >> >> - Advice from the directorate as requested by the Chair during IETF LC >> or IESG Discusses. >> >> There have been suggestions for a checklist for RSVP WGLC. I think this >> would be good and I would support such a list. However, there is no >> current push for this as a WG Chair. My best choice would be to try to >> make the "process" work, rather than seeking to perfect the rules. >> >> Gorry >> >> P.S. I'd expect the motivation for the document and case for why the >> work is needed to already be captured from (1) - and I will copy some of >> this directly into the Shepherd Review document after WGLC. >> >> On 30/03/2011 23:58, Lou Berger wrote: >>> Bruce, >>> Your response is reasonable. I'd still like to hear from the WG chairs >>> on question 2 though. >>> >>> Lou >>> >>> On 3/30/2011 6:36 PM, Bruce Davie wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Lou Berger wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bruce/Dave, >>>>> First let me say that review is goodness and I have no issues with >>>>> providing input on the suitability for *acceptance* as a WG document >>>>> based on technical review. But I'm left with a couple of questions: >>>>> >>>>> 1) It sounds like you are expecting a non-technical / market review of >>>>> the drafts by the rsvp-dir. Is this correct? >>>> >>>> I would tend to say that the review guidelines I wrote are trying to get at 2 key issues: >>>> - does this draft tackle a problem worth solving? >>>> - does it do so in a technically correct way? >>>> >>>> So, no, I don't really view this as a non-technical review. But the first question has some not-totally-technical aspects, I guess. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) What work / input do you expect from the WG before a LC is issued for >>>>> a document that has gone through the described process? >>>> >>>> David (or Gorry) should maybe answer this, but I think they are looking for adequate review from *somewhere*, either the directorate (which contains a lot of RSVP experts) or other WG members (which is the reason I was asking the directorate to try to recruit more reviewers). >>>> >>>> It seems to me that the ADs& Chairs are looking for a pretty large number of reviews even before adopting the draft as a WG item, which should mean that any adopted draft should be in fairly good shape. >>>> >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much thanks, >>>>> Lou >>>>> >>>>> On 3/30/2011 9:57 AM, Bruce Davie wrote: >>>>>> I met with the TSV ADs on Monday and we talked about how we might make more progress with the RSVP-related drafts that are coming through TSVWG. As you know, the directorate has not to date produced many reviews of the drafts, and the ADs really would like to see more reviews, and promises to review mature drafts, in order to feel confident that the drafts are worth the time and attention of the WG. So, first of all, I'd like to respectfully ask the Directorate members to step up and commit to reviewing these drafts. The 2 drafts that need attention right now are: >>>>>> >>>>>> draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06.txt >>>>>> draft-polk-tsvwg-rsvp-app-id-vv-profiles-02.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> Many of you have spoken in favor of the former, but AFAIK, only Lou and I have actually provided detailed reviews. Could I ask for one or two more reviewers? Even a promise of a review would be nice. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the record, I will also review the second draft. >>>>>> >>>>>> To spread the load around, we should be trying to find people outside the directorate who can do reviews. I have asked Ken Carlberg; can any of you think of, or find, others who might do reviews? If we want to keep RSVP standards in the IETF, we really need a stable of reviewers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, David Harrington asked me to draw up some review guidelines, so here is my attempt to do that. >>>>>> >>>>>> A review should address why (or whether) the draft warrants the attention of TSVWG. That justification should cover the following points to the extent possible: >>>>>> - What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is the draft trying to solve? >>>>>> - What class of application will benefit if the draft becomes a standard? >>>>>> - Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better. >>>>>> - What new capability will we have if this draft becomes a standard? >>>>>> - What community of users will benefit from this work? >>>>>> >>>>>> In addition, the review should sanity-check the draft for technical correctness in terms of its relationship to the RSVP and Intserv specifications. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bruce Davie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> rsvp-dir mailing list >>>>>> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rsvp-dir mailing list >>> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rsvp-dir mailing list >> rsvp-dir@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rsvp-dir >> >> >> >> > >