Subject: [rsvp-dir] RSVP directorate formed

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:01:14 +0300

Hi,

following the discussion during the IETF-77 TSVAREA meeting on how to better review and progress extensions to (non-TE) RSVP and IntServ, the transport area directors have formed a new RSVP directorate and given it these tasks:

  * Review of all new work related to RSVP and Integrated Services that
    is proposed for IETF adoption. The purpose of this review is to
    advise the ADs and the chairs of the Transport Area Working Group
    (TSVWG) on whether a particular proposal should be taken on as a
    work item. The directorate will continue to guide and review such
    new work in TSVWG until it is ready for publication as an RFC.
    
  * Review of selected documents during IETF last call or under IESG
    review. The directorate monitors ongoing IETF work and should
    independently decide when a document will benefit from their review,
    assign a reviewer and enter into a follow-on discussion with the
    authors. When deemed necessary, the area directors will on occasion
    directly consult the directorate while forming their opinion on
    selected documents being under review by the IESG.
    
  * Cross-working group review. RSVP documents may have relevance to
    several working groups, including TSVWG and MPLS-related groups
    such as MPLS WG and CCAMP WG. The directorate will ensure that
    drafts submitted to TSV WG are reviewed in the appropriate MPLS-related
    WGs if necessary, and will bring drafts from the MPLS-related WGs
    to the attention of the TSV WG as appropriate.

The directorate can be reached at [email-masked]. Additional information about the directorate is at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/RSVP-Directorate.

Lars

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:09:18 -0500

Lars

This is great news!

James

At 08:01 AM 5/10/2010, Lars Eggert wrote:
>Hi,
>
>following the discussion during the IETF-77 TSVAREA meeting on how 
>to better review and progress extensions to (non-TE) RSVP and 
>IntServ, the transport area directors have formed a new RSVP 
>directorate and given it these tasks:
>
>The directorate can be reached at [email-masked]. Additional 
>information about the directorate is at 
>http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/RSVP-Directorate.
>
>Lars

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 13:16:38 -0500

Lars

AS a follow-on to the public reply...

{I reduced the To: and cc: lists}

What do we do about the TSVWG charter saying RSVP is only to do minor 
extensions and maintenance, when at least one individual ID that 
wants to become a TSV WG item is considered by some to be more than 
minor (MULTI_TSPEC that creates a new Object)?

I know the ADs can approve anything to become a WG item (within 
reason), including this ID - but one of the things this process 
highlighted (at least to me) is that IntServ is nowhere in the TSVWG 
charter, and this particular ID is an extension to IntServ.

Do we chairs propose new charter text that addresses just this small 
omission, or do we chairs propose more of what this directorate is 
about (i.e., what they are to help with)?

James

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:42:21 -0400

Hi,

I recommend the first bullet of the rsvp-dir tasks be slightly
modified:
OLD:
>     work item.
NEW:
>     work item, including whether the proposal fits within the
charter of
      the TSVWG whose RSVP scope is limited to minor extensions and
maintenance.

If the rsvp-dir does not find it to be within the scope of TSVWG, then
the work would
require a charter deliverable update with AD approval, I assume.
If Intserv is not within the charter, then Intserv proposals are
presumably
going to be found not in scope.
Then the TSVWG chairs can presumbaly use the normal "this is the
catch-all WG" logic
to determine WG consensus and get AD approval for the new work item.

(If there is consensus that this would help the situation, we could
update the TSVWG 
charter to also include Intserv minor updates and maintenance.)

my $.02
dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James M. Polk
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 2:17 PM
> To: Lars Eggert
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [rsvp-dir] RSVP directorate formed
> 
> Lars
> 

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

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 16:47:38 -0500

David

I have no issues wrt your proposed addition.

Wrt the IntServ not being in the current TSVWG charter, most have 
assumed (incorrectly) that IntServ wouldn't be touched again, and 
that there were only tweaks to RSVP that were needed (if they were 
needed) - mostly because most didn't understand where RSVP ended and 
IntServ started -- therefore no Transport WG has IntServ in its charter.

Lars has said on ocassion that IntServ IDs can get the approval from 
the ADs because of this close relationship with RSVP.

I think that if the RSVP Directorate believes that any ID - which is 
mostly IntServ based - is needed by the community, then TSVWG is the 
most likely place for WG review of that work. At this point, we TSVWG 
chairs should work with the ADs to change the charter text to 
explicitly add IntServ to the charter so that any future IntServ IDs 
don't have to run this gauntlet again (i.e., justifying why in 
TSVWG), and merely have this be a "is this ID worthy of progressing 
or not" discussion.

Make any sense?

James

---

From: Bruce Davie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 17:58:05 -0400

James,
 Your proposal makes sense to me. I think the RSVP directorate has the expertise to determine if Intserv-related work should be progressed, and having the TSVWG charter updated to allow such work would be a good thing IMHO.

Bruce

On May 10, 2010, at 5:47 PM, James M. Polk wrote:

> Wrt the IntServ not being in the current TSVWG charter, most have assumed (incorrectly) that IntServ wouldn't be touched again, and that there were only tweaks to RSVP that were needed (if they were needed) - mostly because most didn't understand where RSVP ended and IntServ started -- therefore no Transport WG has IntServ in its charter.
> 
> Lars has said on ocassion that IntServ IDs can get the approval from the ADs because of this close relationship with RSVP.
> 
> I think that if the RSVP Directorate believes that any ID - which is mostly IntServ based - is needed by the community, then TSVWG is the most likely place for WG review of that work. At this point, we TSVWG chairs should work with the ADs to change the charter text to explicitly add IntServ to the charter so that any future IntServ IDs don't have to run this gauntlet again (i.e., justifying why in TSVWG), and merely have this be a "is this ID worthy of progressing or not" discussion.
> 
> Make any sense?
> 
> James
>

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 07:55:19 +0300

Hi,

> Your proposal makes sense to me. I think the RSVP directorate has the expertise to determine if Intserv-related work should be progressed, and having the TSVWG charter updated to allow such work wo…

agreed, TSVWG as the TSV area catch-all WG, is the default home for IntServ.

If you want to edit the charter so this is clear, please send a text proposal. I'd also be fine with waiting until we take on an IntServ work item in the future.

Lars

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 12:36:12 -0400

+1 

> From: Lars Eggert [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 12:55 AM
> To: Bruce Davie
> Cc: James M. Polk; David Harrington; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]
> > Your proposal makes sense to me. I think the RSVP 
> directorate has the expertise to determine if Intserv-related 
> work should be progressed, and having the TSVWG charter 
> updated to allow such work would be a good thing IMHO.
> 
> If you want to edit the charter so this is clear, please send 
> a text proposal. I'd also be fine with waiting until we take 
> on an IntServ work item in the future.
> 
> Lars
> 
>

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 21:51:30 +0200

Hi Lars,

This is a good approach in my opinion.
Thanks

Francois

> The directorate can be reached at [email-masked]. Additional information about the directorate is at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/tsv/trac/wiki/RSVP-Directorate.

Francois Le Faucheur
Distinguished Engineer
Corporate Development
[email-masked]
Phone: +33 49 723 2619
Mobile: +33 6 19 98 50 90

Cisco Systems France
Greenside
400 Ave de Roumanille
06410 Sophia Antipolis
France
Cisco.com

 Think before you print.

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

Cisco Systems France, Société à responsabiité limitée, Rue Camille Desmoulins – Imm Atlantis Zac Forum Seine Ilot 7 92130 Issy les Moulineaux, Au capital de 91.470 €, 349 166 561 RCS Nanterre, Directeur de la publication: Jean-Luc Michel Givone.

For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html