Subject: Two more working group last calls

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:12:56 +0100

Hi,

Sorry for the continued bombardment with reviewing activity.

Here are two drafts that were discussed in Philadelphia with the intention 
to go to WG last call as soon as possible.

draft-ietf-rfc4420-bis-02.txt
This is the revision to RFC 4420 to fix the TLV encoding to be consistent 
with the previous RSVP-TE RFCs. The fix is to the interpretation of the 
Length field.
Although we might not expect much in the way of review comments for this 
I-D, it would be very helpful if you could read the I-D, point out any 
typos, and send a note to say that you have read the document and believe it 
is ready for publication.

draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-00.txt
This I-D for asymmetrical bandwidth allocations on bidirectional LSPs has 
been moved into the WG from being an individual submission, and has been 
marked as "Experimental". The reasoning was:
- This is clearly a draft that CCAMP needs to review, so it might as well
  be a CCAMP draft.
- This is a "stake in the ground" for how this problem would be solved
  within RSVP-TE, but at this stage there are no known implementations
  and no-one considering implementation.

Please send your reviews to the list by 12 noon GMT, April 26, 2008.

Thanks,
Adrian

PS, I'll be notifying the MPLS mailing list of these two last calls.

---

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:41:24 -0400

Hi Adrian,

I've looked over draft-ietf-rfc4420-bis-02.txt and did not notice any
typos.  The new
Length description looks like the equivalent text in RFC 3471, which we
support.  It
looks ready for publication.

Request that other editors check to make sure that their drafts are
updated to have the
same interpretation of the Length field as well.

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 8:13 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Two more working group last calls

Hi,

Here are two drafts that were discussed in Philadelphia with the
intention to go to WG last call as soon as possible.

draft-ietf-rfc4420-bis-02.txt
This is the revision to RFC 4420 to fix the TLV encoding to be
consistent with the previous RSVP-TE RFCs. The fix is to the
interpretation of the Length field.
Although we might not expect much in the way of review comments for this
I-D, it would be very helpful if you could read the I-D, point out any
typos, and send a note to say that you have read the document and
believe it is ready for publication.

draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-00.txt
This I-D for asymmetrical bandwidth allocations on bidirectional LSPs
has been moved into the WG from being an individual submission, and has
been marked as "Experimental". The reasoning was:
- This is clearly a draft that CCAMP needs to review, so it might as
well
  be a CCAMP draft.
- This is a "stake in the ground" for how this problem would be solved
  within RSVP-TE, but at this stage there are no known implementations
  and no-one considering implementation.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:23:49 -0400

Adrian,
         See below for minor comments:

>draft-ietf-rfc4420-bis-02.txt

I assume that you mean draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt.

>Although we might not expect much in the way of review comments for 
>this I-D, it would be very helpful if you could read the I-D, point 
>out any typos, and send a note to say that you have read the 
>document and believe it is ready for publication.

Only a minor suggestion here:

I suggest moving the rational for the updated provided from section 
14 to section 1.  Specifically:

- drop section 14
- section 1, 1st paragraph: drop "See Section 14 for a summary of 
changes." and add:
    Prior to the change, the Length field indicated the length of the
    Value field only. After the change, as described in Section 3, the
    Length field indicates the length of the whole TLV. This change means
    that this document is consistent with the subobject format defined in
    [RFC3209] and the TLV format defined in [RFC3471].

Lou

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:43:24 +0100

Hi Lou,

I just consulted with our AD on the "correct" way of doing this. He 
suggested...

- The abstract and introduction should very clearly state that this
  document is an update to the previous document.
- The introduction should point to a section somewhere in the
  document (possibly an annex) that describes the differences in
  some detail.
- Otherwise, the new document can stand on its own.

I think that is what we currently have.

Do you feel strongly about your suggested change?

Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lou Berger" <[email-masked]>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: Two more working group last calls

>>typos, and send a note to say that you have read the document and believe 
>>it is ready for publication.
>
> I suggest moving the rational for the updated provided from section 14 to 
> section 1.  Specifically:
>
> - drop section 14

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:00:55 -0400

Adrian,

Not sure how this is an AD issue, to me it's one of 
aesthetics/style.  As this is an issue of style and personal 
preference, the choice is 100% the author's (i.e., yours).  In other 
words, please feel free to ignore my suggestion!

Lou

At 06:43 AM 4/25/2008, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Lou Berger" <[email-masked]>
>>>Although we might not expect much in the way of review comments 
>>>for this I-D, it would be very helpful if you could read the I-D, 
>>>point out any typos, and send a note to say that you have read the

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:27:53 +0100

Hi,

We completed the last calls on draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt and 
draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-00.txt

As I see it, there is no need for an update to 
draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc4420bis-02.txt.

Lou has agreed the necessary changes to 
draft-ietf-ccamp-asymm-bw-bidir-lsps-00.txt so we just need to see a revised 
version and we can proceed.

As I am an author of one of these I-Ds, Deborah will do the document 
shepherding.

Cheers,
Adrian