Subject: Re: BGP spec and IDR WG charter

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:51:22 -0700

>1. Any reason the charter doesn't include BGP Graceful Restart ?
>
>2. Any reason the charter doesn't mention draft-ietf-idr-md5-keys-00.txt ?

I just modified the current charter (the one you and Sue sent me
in November last year), which doesn't contain either of these items.
If Graceful Restart should be in the charter, now would be an ideal time
to add it.  (Before now would have been an even better time -- it's the
WG chairs' responsibility to keep the charter and milestones up to date.)

I admit I made a mistake forwarding draft-ietf-idr-md5-keys to the
IESG without it being on the WG charter.  I'll try not to make such
mistakes in the future.

>3. The WG completed the work on the extended communities and submitted 
>   the draft to the IESG 3 weeks before you informed the WG
>   about the Routing Area Directors' decision not to forward any 
>   IDR documents for IESG considerations until the base BGP spec update 
>   is finished.

Actually, we're going to include extended communities in the work
that's held up.  There's something that I didn't understand about the
IETF process until I became an AD, and although we've tried to explain
it to some extent (e.g. Thomas and Allison's "life of an I-D" plenary
presentation last year) it's probably still not widely understood.
Working Groups submit documents to their ADs; the AD then reviews the
document, possibly asks the WG for changes, and then submits it to the
IESG for consideration.  Since I had not yet finished my review of this
document when we made this decision, we will not be forwarding it to the
IESG until the base spec is finished.

  Bill

---

From: Enke Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:03:49 -0700

Bill,

> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: BGP spec and IDR WG charter
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 16:51:22 -0700
> Versions: dmail (solaris) 2.5a/makemail 2.9d
> Sender: [email-masked]

[snip]

> IESG without it being on the WG charter.  I'll try not to make such

There are several other IDR WG drafts that are not listed in the
charter, for example:

    draft-ietf-idr-cease-subcode-01.txt
    draft-ietf-idr-bgp-identifier-00.txt
    ....

Considering your statement, I suppose that all the IDR WG drafts
that are currently not listed in the WG charter need to be added
to avoid mistakes/delays in the future. Is this correct?

-- Enke

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:04:22 -0700

Bill,

> WG chairs' responsibility to keep the charter and milestones up to date.)

Ok. We'll add it to the charter (as well as other items mentioned by Enke).
  
> IESG without it being on the WG charter.  I'll try not to make such

So, what is the current status on that draft ?
  
> IESG until the base spec is finished.

Ok.

On a related topic, in order for us to put specific dates in the charter
we need to know how long it would take the IESG to process BGP base
spec from the moment the WG would forward the spec to you and Alex.

Yakov.

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 15:41:24 -0700

Yakov,

> So, what is the current status on that draft ?

It's been to an IESG telechat, where some issues were raised. We'll
follow up on this separately.

> spec from the moment the WG would forward the spec to you and Alex.

Here's an approximation:

 Stage           Anticipated delay          Comment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AD-review       1--4 weeks                 The document may go back to the
                 depending on workload      WG for the AD-review comments
                                            to be addressed; this would
                                            introduce additional delay.

 IETF LC         2 weeks                    Same as above

 IESG review&    1--2 weeks depending       Same as above
 telechat        on when the IETF LC ends
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that if the document is sent back to the WG at some stage, required
changes may warrant an additional WG Last Call.

I can personally commit to a 2-week upper bound for the AD-review
period. Bill may have a different timer granularity.

Alex