Subject: [Tsvwg] Draft meeting minutes for TSVWG at IETF67

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:48:47 -0600

TSVWG

I've submitted the WG's *draft* meeting minutes for our recent San Diego 
meeting, here:

	http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/agenda/tsvwg.txt

Please comment where these need to be more accurate.  No comments means 
this becomes our WG record of the events for this meeting.

Thank you!

Cheers,
James
IETF TSVWG co-chair

              ***********************************
     "It should NEVER be inconvenient to do the right thing"

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:12:53 +0200

On Nov 21, 2006, at 0:48, James M. Polk wrote:
> I've submitted the WG's *draft* meeting minutes for our recent San  
> Diego meeting, here:
>

James meant: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/minutes/tsvwg.txt

> Please comment where these need to be more accurate.  No comments  
> means this becomes our WG record of the events for this meeting.

Lars

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:25:35 -0600

>James meant: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/minutes/tsvwg.txt

oops

long day, forgive me!

---

From: Francois Le Faucheur IMAP <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:39:53 +0100

Hello,

>> means this becomes our WG record of the events for this meeting.

Few comments:

Regarding :
"
Francois - RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services            1530-1540
   draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-00                         (10min)
"

Could we replace:
"
- Listed what was done since last meeting
- plan to fix the very few editorial nits
   - change the admission priority from 3 to 8 bits,
- invert the encoding order,
- add a DRSN example to clarify the ALRP priority field, and
   - clarify engineered capacity limits
"
By:
"
- Listed what was done since last meeting in response to comments on  
the list:
    * changed the admission priority from 3 to 8 bits,
    * inverted the encoding order
    * added a DRSN example to clarify the ALRP priority field, and
    * clarified engineered capacity limits
- plan to fix the very few remaining editorial nits
"

Again Regarding :
"
Francois - RSVP Extensions for Emergency Services            1530-1540
   draft-ietf-tsvwg-emergency-rsvp-00                         (10min)

- Francois thinks this is ready to WGLC
- ~10 hands showed they had read the doc
"
I believe there was also a poll of the room about whether the  
document should go for last call, which was positive and the  
conclusion was to then confirm that decision on the list (as usual).  
Was jetlag resulting in hallucinations?

Regarding:
"
Georgios - Resource Unavailability PDB                       1630-1640
   draft-karagiannis-ru-pdb-03                                (10min)
"
I think there was a comment from Anna Charny along the lines of  
"Should the PCN WG be created, this I-D may be better homed there" to  
which I think Georgios agreed.

Regarding:
"
Francois - RSVP Proxy Approaches                             1640-1650
   draft-lefaucheur-tsvwg-rsvp-proxy-00.txt                   (10min)
"
Could we replace:
"
- Francois had an indecision about which direction this doc should go
   in, as there is a small RSVP extension called out in the doc, but
   this doc also creates a function within RSVP, called the RSVP Agent,
   leading Francois to not be sure if this should be a INFO or PS doc
"
by
"
- Francois had an indecision about which direction this doc should go  
in, as there is a small RSVP extension called out in the doc, which  
means, as it is, doc needs to go for Standards Track. Another option  
could be to move the RSVP extension into separate doc which goes for  
Standards Track, while all the rest of the material on background,  
approaches, use cases woudl go for Informational Track.
"

Thanks

Francois

---

From: Sally Floyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 09:32:33 -0800

A few minor edits:

 >Bob - Policing and Accountability for Causing Congestion on Borders
 >draft-briscoe-tsvwg-re-ecn-tcp-03                          1620-1630
OLD:
 > - doesn't think there is running code for ECN nonce
 > o Sally objects to that characterization, saying this was added by
 > IESG, and on the doc editors
NEW:
   o Sally objects to the characterization of authors adding the
   ECN nonce to documents to pad out the security considerations
   section, saying that the ECN nonce was added to RFC 3168
   by the IESG, not by the document editors.

...
OLD:
 > o Sally: the problem with holding the ECN nonce is that it is
 > referenced in 3 PS RFCs (but several proposed standards depend on it
 > (RFCs 4340, 4341, 4342)), so removing or holding its usage isn't easy
NEW:
o Sally: one problem with holding the ECN nonce is that the codepoint
is standardized in RFC 3168, and used in three other Proposed Standard
RFCs (RFCs 4340, 4341, 4342), so keeping RFC 3540 at Experimental
does not hold up the use of the ECN nonce in Proposed Standard 
protocols.

...
 >Pasi and Sally - Cross-layer Indications for Transport Protocols
 >draft-sarolahti-tsvwg-crosslayer-00                        1650-1700
OLD:
 >- v-00 is missing sessions, next version will fill in text
NEW:
                                  sections,

- Sally
http://www.icir.org/floyd/

---

From: ken carlberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:09:46 -0500

> conclusion was to then confirm that decision on the list (as  
> usual). Was jetlag resulting in hallucinations?

the poll and conclusion of a last call was my recollection as well.   
I don't recall the action of confirming on the list, but I would like  
that to be done -- if nothing else, to provide a chance for those on  
the list to express any reservations of taking the draft to WG Last  
Call.

cheers,

-ken

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:05:35 -0800

On Nov 24, 2006, at 6:09, ken carlberg wrote:
> the poll and conclusion of a last call was my recollection as  
> well.  I don't recall the action of confirming on the list, but I  
> would like that to be done -- if nothing else, to provide a chance  
> for those on the list to express any reservations of taking the  
> draft to WG Last Call.

Thanks for noticing this. Your chairs are a bit slow in their after- 
IETF processing.

Lars