Subject: [rsvp-dir] DRAFTS BEING DISCUSSED BY RSVP-DIR (updated 21-Mar-2011)

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 08:37:46 +0000

You should be receiving this member of the RSVP-DIR team. The email 
records my note on the current drafts referred to RSVP-DIR. There may be 
things I have missed, the activity appears to be on a slow-burn, but 
recently I've seen comments on the tsvwg list on one of these drafts, so 
maybe now is a good time to see if more people willing to step-up as 
reviewers.

I have a meeting with ADs on Monday 28th March, where I'll report status 
and try to determine whether we can advance any of this work within TSVWG.

* draft-polk-tsvwg-intserv-multiple-tspec-06
RSVP-dir reviews requested 8/7/2010 (reminder 27/7/10)
Commitment to review future versions of the draft:
	None currently
Reviews:
	Bruce Davie - detailed review 8/7/2010
Comments:
	Francois 26/03/2009 (pre-directorate)
	Lou Berger - questions on approach. 17/3/2011
	Ken Carlberg 16/3/2011
Notes of support: (with no comments)
	Scott Bradner 16/3/2011
	Lixia Zhang 31/7/2010
	Fred Baker 16/3/2011
	Adrian Farrel 19/3/2011

* draft-lefaucheur-tsvwg-rsvp-multiple-preemption-02.txt
RSVP-dir reviews requested 8/7/2010 (reminder 27/7/10)
Commitment to review future versions of the draft:
	None currently
Reviews:
	Bruce Davie - detailed review 8/7/2010
Comments:
	Bob Briscoe (pre-directorate)
Notes of support: (with no comments)
	Lixia Zhang 31/7/2010

* draft-narayanan-tsvwg-rsvp-resource-sharing-02
RSVP-dir reviews requested 8/7/2010 (reminder 27/7/10)
The bulk of the work in this ID is to progress in CCAMP WG.
Commitment to review future versions of the draft:
	None currently
Reviews:
	Bruce Davie - detailed review 8/7/2010
Notes of support: (with no comments)
	Lixia Zhang 31/7/2010

- My current thoughts are that there seems to be interest within the 
RSVP community and that these remain potential working group work items, 
however I've not yet seen the level of review I'd hoped for, and 
specifically I do not have on record any names of people who promise to 
track progress of the drafts and offer detailed comments when needed. 
This is one thing I will before I support these being adopted.

I'm attaching below the (updated) list of questions that Bruce responded 
to in July - his responses were really useful - would more people from 
the directorate also offer their own answers?

Thanks and best wishes,

Gorry
TSVWG Co-Chair

(Tom is a co-author on one of these drafts)

--- RSVP-DIR Review Information ---

For each draft, the sort of things I'm interested as a Chair are:

* Have you personally reviewed the document in detail: Are there any 
areas that are less mature than others from a technical point of view: 
Can you see sections that would need more work? Are there missing sections?

* Does the WG need to do this? Why?

* Is this a change to the base specification: Does this seem to update 
IntServ?

* What specs would this draft update: Will it update another draft or 
RFC? Is there related work in another WG?

* What problem with existing RSVP/Intserv is this trying to solve?

* What class of application will benefit if your draft becomes a 
standard? (Do you know of indications that there may be a "customer" for 
this specific technology: e.g. another working group? need to support an 
application? have vendors indicated their plan to implement the 
specification? etc?)

* Is there another way to solve this problem (or might someone think 
there is)? If so, explain how this solution is better/worse.

* Would you as a member of the directorate volunteer to comment on 
progress of this draft and also commit to personally review the final 
versions of the document as we get to WGLC? (We'll need several people 
for each WG draft.)

* Do you know of other things that may help the chairs understand 
whether the WG should devote energy to this draft?

--- END RSVP-DIR Review Information ---