Subject: [mpls-tp] comment on MPLS-TP document processing

From: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:51:14 +0200 (CEST)

All,

I'd like to comment on the current discussion on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-06 .

We do our best follow the the mpls-tp process as described in:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-andersson-mpls-tp-process-01.txt

The outstanding question we have for the ITU-T ad hoc team on
MPLS-TP is step 13 in the figure on page 7 of that draft. We are
asking the ad hoc Team if the draft is good enough to send to the
IESG with a request for publication.

Please note that we are only expecting a "yes" or "no" answer to
our question.

If the response is "yes" then publication will be requested, if
the answer is "no", the document will be taken back into the
working group process and a new version produced.

That said, there is never wrong to discuss technical improvements,
editorial issues or genereal clarifications on any draft.

/Loa

---

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:06:17 +0200

Hej Loa,

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-andersson-mpls-tp-process-01.txt

I agree.

> IESG with a request for publication.

However these are not new questions, the issues were raised during
the ITU-T plenary and were supposed to be resolved.

> Please note that we are only expecting a "yes" or "no" answer to

I understand, but in this case it would be a conditional yes,
because, as I mentioned above, not all issues were resolved.

> editorial issues or genereal clarifications on any draft.

What is the purpose of discussing them when the publication has
started. Unless this is a working method accepted in the IETF.
and there is still a possibility to make technical changes/
adjustments.

In the ITU-T once a recommendation draft is consented (yes is
received) then the draft is pre-published.
The ITU-T editors will than bring the document in a shape
that is can be officially published, but in this stage no
technical changes can be made any more, only typographical.

Regards, Huub.

-- 
================================================================
                   http://www.van-helvoort.eu/
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...

---

From: Thomas Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:26:43 -0400

Huub,  

> because, as I mentioned above, not all issues were resolved.

Conditional yes?  Isn't that the same as "no" - since Loa says there is only "Yes" or "No"?  

I am confused.  Maybe you could clarify.

Tom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Huub van Helvoort
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 8:06 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] comment on MPLS-TP document processing
> 
> 
> Hej Loa,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > All,
> >
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:29:54 -0400

Huub,

In the IETF, you can always bring up technical or other issues until the RFC
is actually published, although it's really best if they come up before the
draft goes on the RFC editor's queue, although the IESG can pull it back if
necessary.

Of course, things are best if all technical issues are resolved prior to or
during WG last call. However, once it goes into IESG review, one can always
make issues known to the relevant AD, and the AD can decide if it's worth
changing the draft. In the latter stages of IESG review, there's also an
IETF last call where there's a last chance for anyone to comment on the
draft back to the IESG.

In this case, it still sounds like there are some issues you would like
resolved before it goes to the IESG.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Thomas Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:32:51 -0400

Andy, Huub,

The way I would interpret Huub's comment is his "conditional yes" is more like a "No with comments" as is done in some bodies.   If the comments are resolved then the "no" is changed to a "yes"

Is that the right interpretation?

Tom

________________________________
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 8:30 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] comment on MPLS-TP document processing

Huub,

In the IETF, you can always bring up technical or other issues until the RFC is actually published, although it's really best if they come up before the draft goes on the RFC editor's queue, although the IESG can pull it back if necessary.

Of course, things are best if all technical issues are resolved prior to or during WG last call. However, once it goes into IESG review, one can always make issues known to the relevant AD, and the AD can decide if it's worth changing the draft. In the latter stages of IESG review, there's also an IETF last call where there's a last chance for anyone to comment on the draft back to the IESG.

In this case, it still sounds like there are some issues you would like resolved before it goes to the IESG.

Cheers,
Andy
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Hej Loa,

You wrote:
All,

I agree.

Regards, Huub.

_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:39:08 +0800

+1

Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]> 
发件人:  [email-masked]
2009-04-20 23:06
请答复 给
[email-masked]

收件人
[email-masked]
抄送
[email-masked]
主题
Re: [mpls-tp] comment on MPLS-TP document processing

Hej Loa,

I agree.

Regards, Huub.

--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:06:12 +0200

Huub,

Tom and Andy has also responded to this and basically there responses
are correct, but not entirely to the point.

We run a slightly modified process for MPLS-TP to allow ITU-T
unprecedented possibilities to influence IETF documents.

This process requires a "yes" or "no" response at this time.

As the process chart in the draft-andersson-mpls-tp-process-01.txt
shows a "yes" leads to a request for publication and we go
back into normal IETF document processing. A "no" places the
document back in the working group processes. And we need to
sort out the comments that led to the "no", it is my take that
if we have comments the leads to a "no" it will require at least
updates that will need to be confirmed in a new working group
last call.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson

Sr Strategy and Standards Manager    phone:  +46 10 717 52 13
Ericsson ///                                 +46 767 72 92 13 

                                       email:  [email-masked]
                                               [email-masked]
                                               [email-masked]

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:10:42 +0200

Huub,

inline please

> the ITU-T plenary and were supposed to be resolved.

As I see there are two different ways of reading this

1. This is an ITU-T requirement and the IETF can only accept it!
2. This is an ITU-T requirement and we need to converge on an
    common understanding that may or not deviate from what was
    in the original requirement

I sincerely hope that we are working according to the latter model.

> because, as I mentioned above, not all issues were resolved.

Huub this is not really correct. Ben responded to each and every
comment that had been sent to the mpls-tp and the ad hod team list.

Some were accepted others were rejected, after that the list went
completely silent. When this happens it is normal IETF process to
assume that people are happy. And we can go ahead and update the
document, nothing were said at the mpls working group meeting in
San Francisco, again an indication that we could go ahead.

However I can understand that IETF processes are confusing and that
we should done a better job advising you on how this works.

The situation today is that we have two documents that has been
sent to the ITU-T for final approval, my advice today would be to
respond "no" as quickly as possible so we can take the document
back into the working group process and do necessary updates.

This reminds me of the situation when I was in the WP3 meeting and
suddenly found out that SG15 was going to decide that there were
no proposal to deprecate existing T-MPLS Recommendations, regardless
of the IAB liaison to the contrary. We have the brilliant decision
that SG15 decides that IAB changed their mind and no longer thinks
it is important to deprecate the T-MPLS Recommendations.

Yes - I don't not understand how the ITU-T processes work and need
help in those situation.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson