Subject: Re: [mpls] I-D Action:draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs-05.txt: Ready for WG LC

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:43:36 +0100

Hello Eric,

We may or may not share the same opinion, but your disagreement on 
requirements seems to go far beyond this specific document... and more a 
WG charter question, if not a general IETF process question...

Eric Rosen:
> If the requirements document does go forward, I think it should contain text
> that makes it clear that it only documents a snapshot of the WG's view of
> the requirements, and is not meant to constrain any future activity of the
> WG.

I would not object to adding such text.

> It should also be made clear that the requirements doc is not part of the WG
> charter,

We can't add such text in this document, since requirements for P2MP 
MPLS and P2MP MPLS-TE actually are in the charter.

-Thomas

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 09:25:36 -0500

> your disagreement on  requirements seems to go far beyond this specific
> document

Yes, my comment is not really directed at this specific document.  But I
don't think anyone really goes back to reread old requirements documents
years after the solution is done, unless they are trying to distract the WG
from the up-to-date requirements.  At this point, why is it worthwhile to
ask the WG to review that document? 

Eric> It should also be made clear that the requirements doc is not part of
Eric> the WG charter,

Thomas> We can't add such text in this document, since requirements for P2MP
Thomas> MPLS and P2MP MPLS-TE actually are in the charter.

I didn't mean to suggest that none of the requirements from the doc are in
the charter, just that the doc itself is not part of the charter.

---

From: Thomas Morin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:00:49 +0100

Hi Eric,

Eric Rosen:
> [...] the doc itself is not part of the charter.

This is nonsense...

The charter does not directly point at Internet Drafts, but:
- the WG charter says "Define requirements, mechanisms and protocol 
extensions for point-to-multipoint (P2MP) MPLS"
- there is a also a charter item worded as follows: "Submit requirements 
for point-to-multipoint extensions to LDP"
- draft-ietf-mpls-mp-ldp-reqs, "Requirements for P2MP Extensions toLDP", 
precisely matches this charter item

>   It should also be made clear that the requirements doc is not part of
>   the WG charter, [...]

I really do not get how the document could claim being not part of the 
charter...

-Thomas

---

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:02:24 -0500

The simplest strategy is to just let the document expire.   If the charter
has the document as one of its milestones, that milestone can be removed
when the charter is next revised.

> I really do not get how the document could claim being not part of the

Some text emphasizing that the document is only of historical interest would
do the trick.

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:35:29 -0500

> when the charter is next revised.

Precisely what I was suggesting earlier too.

Tom

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