From adrian@olddog.co.uk Mon Aug 26 07:48:15 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8543911E81AF; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:48:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.855 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.855 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_05=-1.11] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m8LOlfn61ifZ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:48:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (asmtp1.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.248]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF8C11E819D; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7QElwZ8010241; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:47:58 +0100 Received: from 950129200 (westford-nat.juniper.net [66.129.232.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7QEluKF010213 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:47:57 +0100 From: "Adrian Farrel" To: , Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:47:56 +0100 Message-ID: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: Ac6iayaq1nJ2Yjb6Tiyv5xAoaay6xA== Content-Language: en-gb Subject: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:48:15 -0000 Hi, Currently the Routing Directorate does reviews for the ADs roughly during IETF last call. They only review on request, and they only focus on: - documents from other areas that the ADs think might have an impact on routing - routing area I-Ds that the ADs want help with (i.e., not all routing area I-Ds) I've been getting a little uncomfortable with the level of issues I raise during AD review (when publication is requested). Possibly this is happening because I am a picky bugger who complains about too much stuff. Possibly it is happening because WG development and last call is not catching enough issues. It is reasonable to expect the ADs to continue to perform detailed review at publication request, but this is a substantial load on the ADs and I wonder that it must be frustrating to the author and WGs to get this level of review after the WG process has completed. I see two options here: 1. AD review to take place during WG last call. Downside is that this is quite a small window to get AD time in. Downside is that the document may get recycled considerably as a result of WG last call so the AD is not reviewing the "best" product of the WG. Upside is that the WG is fully involved in results of the AD review. Upside is that the process is more streamlined. 2. Routing directorate review takes place during WG last call. Downside is that the document may get recycled considerably as a result of WG last call so the review does not catch the "best" product of the WG. Upside is that the WG is fully involved in results of the directorate review. Upside is that the document should be in better condition when the AD sees it. Combining options 1 and 2 is also possible. Do y'all have any thoughts on this? Thanks, Adrian From cpignata@cisco.com Mon Aug 26 13:19:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B1AC21F991E; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:19:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3wttJZ0iWMCv; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:19:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F46421F995B; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:19:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3319; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1377548341; x=1378757941; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=G79lMqDRo0JGFFFmqSKlhd5/B8zVAkR7D08fjEiOdgU=; b=aNC60ZstSvXbb8l9VSYGWle0WOsoODXNWqcUbkm8jCYbvPcPRkjR7Wvp oHrSSDanS6z4Ne1D9mhpBBD9ITJ86RCmsiWBbqboN5Bbu95+Q/6++stkU XaF2YJvyZApdIyF/WEFN6CZax80V8JCmYtN7zGSc3QMeLPcEWpnht/Nvm U=; X-Files: signature.asc : 203 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhoFAE63G1KtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABagweBBsAigSIWdIIkAQEBAwF0BQULAgEIIiQyJQEBBA4FCAaHbQa4CpBHMQeDHH0DkB2BLpgEgx6CKg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,961,1367971200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="251842988" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2013 20:19:01 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7QKJ0WP002760 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:19:00 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com ([169.254.5.15]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:19:00 -0500 From: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" To: "" Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews Thread-Index: Ac6iayaq1nJ2Yjb6Tiyv5xAoaay6xAAWEF+A Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:18:59 +0000 Message-ID: <95067C434CE250468B77282634C96ED325E3ED28@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> References: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.115.54] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_175CEFEE-E7B5-4E7A-A399-38E571366E63"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" , "" Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:19:07 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_175CEFEE-E7B5-4E7A-A399-38E571366E63 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Adrian, In general, I think that early (as well as cross-area) thorough reviews = have great return. However, for the actual stage in the process you are = concerned with (after/during WGLC and before sending to the IESG), = what's the role of the "document quality" section of the Shepherd = write-up? I guess I see value in #2 (directorate review during WGLC for RTG docs), = but I wonder: 1. How much is that a requisite to WGLC from the shepherd role? 2. How would you choose which document -- every doc? Sorry I contributed more questions than answers :-) Thanks, -- Carlos. On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Currently the Routing Directorate does reviews for the ADs roughly = during IETF > last call. They only review on request, and they only focus on: > - documents from other areas that the ADs think might have an impact = on routing > - routing area I-Ds that the ADs want help with (i.e., not all routing = area > I-Ds) >=20 > I've been getting a little uncomfortable with the level of issues I = raise during > AD review (when publication is requested). Possibly this is happening = because I > am a picky bugger who complains about too much stuff. Possibly it is = happening > because WG development and last call is not catching enough issues. >=20 > It is reasonable to expect the ADs to continue to perform detailed = review at > publication request, but this is a substantial load on the ADs and I = wonder that > it must be frustrating to the author and WGs to get this level of = review after > the WG process has completed. >=20 > I see two options here: >=20 > 1. AD review to take place during WG last call. > Downside is that this is quite a small window to get AD time in. > Downside is that the document may get recycled considerably as a = result of WG > last call so the AD is not reviewing the "best" product of the WG. > Upside is that the WG is fully involved in results of the AD review. > Upside is that the process is more streamlined. >=20 > 2. Routing directorate review takes place during WG last call. > Downside is that the document may get recycled considerably as a = result of WG > last call so the review does not catch the "best" product of the WG. > Upside is that the WG is fully involved in results of the directorate = review. > Upside is that the document should be in better condition when the AD = sees it. >=20 > Combining options 1 and 2 is also possible. >=20 > Do y'all have any thoughts on this? >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_175CEFEE-E7B5-4E7A-A399-38E571366E63 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlIbuDMACgkQtfDPGTp3USxCsACffHectQ4VocBJ130F9S/GX9tN 8u8AnjM0E8kjqtaAh15W1o34MHVsvK7F =sI75 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_175CEFEE-E7B5-4E7A-A399-38E571366E63-- From thomas.morin@orange.com Tue Aug 27 01:01:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4360611E816D; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:01:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.306 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.306 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L+bbMkbr2PO2; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:00:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias245.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.245]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE08111E816B; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by omfeda10.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id CAAF13746C6; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:00:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Exchangemail-eme1.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.1.186]) by omfeda07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A2FC915804E; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:00:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([fe80::cc7e:e40b:42ef:164e]) by PEXCVZYH01.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:00:54 +0200 From: Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews Thread-Index: Ac6iayaq1nJ2Yjb6Tiyv5xAoaay6xAAf6OcA Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:00:54 +0000 Message-ID: <19844_1377590454_521C5CB6_19844_3503_1_AC1ADC68A92CF94FA8CFCB406C1CBE3D07584F7E@PEXCVZYM13.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> References: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 x-originating-ip: [10.197.38.5] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-ID: <1D7C2C763AC3EA4FB24E20E67ECB239D@adroot.infra.ftgroup> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2013.8.27.22452 Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , Adrian Farrel , "rtg-chairs@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:01:02 -0000 SGVsbG8gQWRyaWFuLA0KDQpPbmUgcXVlc3Rpb246IGluIHRoZSBjYXNlIG9mICgyKSwgd291bGQg dGhlIHNldCBvZiBJLURzIHN1YmplY3RlZCB0byBhIA0KZGlyZWN0b3JhdGUgcmV2aWV3IGJlIGRp ZmZlcmVudCBmcm9tIHdoYXQgd2UgaGF2ZSB0b2RheSA/DQpBc3N1bWluZyB0aGF0IHRoaXMgc2V0 IGRvZXMgbm90IGNoYW5nZSwgSSB0aGluayAoMikgaXMgYSBnb29kIGlkZWEgKG5vdCANCnByZXZl bnRpbmcgKDEpIGZvciBzb21lIHNwZWNpZmljIGRyYWZ0IGZvciB3aGljaCBBRCB3b3VsZCBmaW5k IGl0IA0KcmVsZXZhbnQgdG8gZG8pLg0KDQpPbmUgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbiwgdmFsaWQgZm9yIGJvdGgg KDEpIGFuZCAoMik6IHRoZSBkb3duc2lkZSBtZW50aW9uZWQgYmVsb3cgDQoodGhhdCBhIHJldmll dyBieSB0aGUgZGlyZWN0b3JhdGUgbWlnaHQgYmUgYSBiaXQgcHJlbWF0dXJlIGZvciBzb21lIA0K ZHJhZnRzKSBtYXkgYmUgcGFydGlhbGx5IGF2b2lkZWQgYnkgYXNraW5nIFdHIGNoYWlycyB3aGV0 aGVyIHRoZXkgZXhwZWN0IA0KYSBsb3Qgb2YgcmVzcGluIGR1cmluZyBXRyBMQywgYW5kIHBvc3Rw b25pbmcgZGlyZWN0b3JhdGUvQUQgcmV2aWV3IGluIA0KdGhhdCBjYXNlLg0KDQotVGhvbWFzDQoN CkFkcmlhbiBGYXJyZWw6DQo+IEhpLA0KPg0KPiBDdXJyZW50bHkgdGhlIFJvdXRpbmcgRGlyZWN0 b3JhdGUgZG9lcyByZXZpZXdzIGZvciB0aGUgQURzIHJvdWdobHkgZHVyaW5nIElFVEYNCj4gbGFz dCBjYWxsLiBUaGV5IG9ubHkgcmV2aWV3IG9uIHJlcXVlc3QsIGFuZCB0aGV5IG9ubHkgZm9jdXMg b246DQo+IC0gZG9jdW1lbnRzIGZyb20gb3RoZXIgYXJlYXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgQURzIHRoaW5rIG1p Z2h0IGhhdmUgYW4gaW1wYWN0IG9uIHJvdXRpbmcNCj4gLSByb3V0aW5nIGFyZWEgSS1EcyB0aGF0 IHRoZSBBRHMgd2FudCBoZWxwIHdpdGggKGkuZS4sIG5vdCBhbGwgcm91dGluZyBhcmVhDQo+IEkt RHMpDQo+DQo+IEkndmUgYmVlbiBnZXR0aW5nIGEgbGl0dGxlIHVuY29tZm9ydGFibGUgd2l0aCB0 aGUgbGV2ZWwgb2YgaXNzdWVzIEkgcmFpc2UgZHVyaW5nDQo+IEFEIHJldmlldyAod2hlbiBwdWJs aWNhdGlvbiBpcyByZXF1ZXN0ZWQpLiBQb3NzaWJseSB0aGlzIGlzIGhhcHBlbmluZyBiZWNhdXNl IEkNCj4gYW0gYSBwaWNreSBidWdnZXIgd2hvIGNvbXBsYWlucyBhYm91dCB0b28gbXVjaCBzdHVm Zi4gUG9zc2libHkgaXQgaXMgaGFwcGVuaW5nDQo+IGJlY2F1c2UgV0cgZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQgYW5k IGxhc3QgY2FsbCBpcyBub3QgY2F0Y2hpbmcgZW5vdWdoIGlzc3Vlcy4NCj4NCj4gSXQgaXMgcmVh c29uYWJsZSB0byBleHBlY3QgdGhlIEFEcyB0byBjb250aW51ZSB0byBwZXJmb3JtIGRldGFpbGVk IHJldmlldyBhdA0KPiBwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiByZXF1ZXN0LCBidXQgdGhpcyBpcyBhIHN1YnN0YW50 aWFsIGxvYWQgb24gdGhlIEFEcyBhbmQgSSB3b25kZXIgdGhhdA0KPiBpdCBtdXN0IGJlIGZydXN0 cmF0aW5nIHRvIHRoZSBhdXRob3IgYW5kIFdHcyB0byBnZXQgdGhpcyBsZXZlbCBvZiByZXZpZXcg YWZ0ZXINCj4gdGhlIFdHIHByb2Nlc3MgaGFzIGNvbXBsZXRlZC4NCj4NCj4gSSBzZWUgdHdvIG9w dGlvbnMgaGVyZToNCj4NCj4gMS4gQUQgcmV2aWV3IHRvIHRha2UgcGxhY2UgZHVyaW5nIFdHIGxh c3QgY2FsbC4NCj4gRG93bnNpZGUgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGlzIGlzIHF1aXRlIGEgc21hbGwgd2luZG93 IHRvIGdldCBBRCB0aW1lIGluLg0KPiBEb3duc2lkZSBpcyB0aGF0IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudCBtYXkg Z2V0IHJlY3ljbGVkIGNvbnNpZGVyYWJseSBhcyBhIHJlc3VsdCBvZiBXRw0KPiBsYXN0IGNhbGwg c28gdGhlIEFEIGlzIG5vdCByZXZpZXdpbmcgdGhlICJiZXN0IiBwcm9kdWN0IG9mIHRoZSBXRy4N Cj4gVXBzaWRlIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhlIFdHIGlzIGZ1bGx5IGludm9sdmVkIGluIHJlc3VsdHMgb2Yg dGhlIEFEIHJldmlldy4NCj4gVXBzaWRlIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhlIHByb2Nlc3MgaXMgbW9yZSBzdHJl YW1saW5lZC4NCj4NCj4gMi4gUm91dGluZyBkaXJlY3RvcmF0ZSByZXZpZXcgdGFrZXMgcGxhY2Ug ZHVyaW5nIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbC4NCj4gRG93bnNpZGUgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgbWF5 IGdldCByZWN5Y2xlZCBjb25zaWRlcmFibHkgYXMgYSByZXN1bHQgb2YgV0cNCj4gbGFzdCBjYWxs IHNvIHRoZSByZXZpZXcgZG9lcyBub3QgY2F0Y2ggdGhlICJiZXN0IiBwcm9kdWN0IG9mIHRoZSBX Ry4NCj4gVXBzaWRlICBpcyB0aGF0IHRoZSBXRyBpcyBmdWxseSBpbnZvbHZlZCBpbiByZXN1bHRz IG9mIHRoZSBkaXJlY3RvcmF0ZSByZXZpZXcuDQo+IFVwc2lkZSBpcyB0aGF0IHRoZSBkb2N1bWVu dCBzaG91bGQgYmUgaW4gYmV0dGVyIGNvbmRpdGlvbiB3aGVuIHRoZSBBRCBzZWVzIGl0Lg0KPg0K PiBDb21iaW5pbmcgb3B0aW9ucyAxIGFuZCAyIGlzIGFsc28gcG9zc2libGUuDQo+DQo+IERvIHkn YWxsIGhhdmUgYW55IHRob3VnaHRzIG9uIHRoaXM/DQo+DQo+IFRoYW5rcywNCj4gQWRyaWFuDQo+ DQo+DQo+DQoKX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwoKQ2UgbWVzc2FnZSBldCBzZXMgcGllY2VzIGpvaW50ZXMgcGV1dmVu dCBjb250ZW5pciBkZXMgaW5mb3JtYXRpb25zIGNvbmZpZGVudGllbGxlcyBvdSBwcml2aWxlZ2ll ZXMgZXQgbmUgZG9pdmVudCBkb25jCnBhcyBldHJlIGRpZmZ1c2VzLCBleHBsb2l0ZXMgb3UgY29w aWVzIHNhbnMgYXV0b3Jpc2F0aW9uLiBTaSB2b3VzIGF2ZXogcmVjdSBjZSBtZXNzYWdlIHBhciBl cnJldXIsIHZldWlsbGV6IGxlIHNpZ25hbGVyCmEgbCdleHBlZGl0ZXVyIGV0IGxlIGRldHJ1aXJl IGFpbnNpIHF1ZSBsZXMgcGllY2VzIGpvaW50ZXMuIExlcyBtZXNzYWdlcyBlbGVjdHJvbmlxdWVz IGV0YW50IHN1c2NlcHRpYmxlcyBkJ2FsdGVyYXRpb24sCk9yYW5nZSBkZWNsaW5lIHRvdXRlIHJl c3BvbnNhYmlsaXRlIHNpIGNlIG1lc3NhZ2UgYSBldGUgYWx0ZXJlLCBkZWZvcm1lIG91IGZhbHNp ZmllLiBNZXJjaS4KClRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBhbmQgaXRzIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIG1heSBjb250YWlu IGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCBvciBwcml2aWxlZ2VkIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIHRoYXQgbWF5IGJlIHByb3Rl Y3RlZCBieSBsYXc7CnRoZXkgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBiZSBkaXN0cmlidXRlZCwgdXNlZCBvciBjb3Bp ZWQgd2l0aG91dCBhdXRob3Jpc2F0aW9uLgpJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIGVtYWls IGluIGVycm9yLCBwbGVhc2Ugbm90aWZ5IHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgYW5kIGRlbGV0ZSB0aGlzIG1lc3Nh Z2UgYW5kIGl0cyBhdHRhY2htZW50cy4KQXMgZW1haWxzIG1heSBiZSBhbHRlcmVkLCBPcmFuZ2Ug aXMgbm90IGxpYWJsZSBmb3IgbWVzc2FnZXMgdGhhdCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gbW9kaWZpZWQsIGNoYW5n ZWQgb3IgZmFsc2lmaWVkLgpUaGFuayB5b3UuCgo= From loa@pi.nu Tue Aug 27 02:22:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3672921E805D; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:22:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id caLkRnfbHOrt; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:22:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B5311E812D; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.133] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB2891802038; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:22:09 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <521C6FC4.2080807@pi.nu> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:22:12 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk References: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, rtg-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:22:17 -0000 Adrian, I agree that the AD will need to do an AD review at the time of publication request. I also agree that we should do anything we can do to improve the quality of the documents we request publication for. My take is also that I won't expect more than one review of the AD for any "normal" document. I'm not certain about the argument "that the document may get recycled considerably as a result of WG" and consequently the AD or the directorate will not review the best of the product from the working group. I find it slightly cross-purpose; the working group last call is there (partly) to bring the document up to a point where it is of such quality that the publication request is possible. Kind of saying that we are still in a "improvement phase". At least the the mpls wg we "freezes" the document during anything that is a review team effort or a wglc. We want all reviewers to look at the same version of the document. When the wglc is closed - there is also one phase that needs to involve reviewers. The authors will address the comments, and before that phase is done we require that a reviewer acknowledge that the comments he/she had is correctly addressed. My proposal would be that we try this: 1. When the working group chairs start a working group last call, this is also sent to the AD (normal practice today) and the the chair of the directorate. 2. AD and chair of directorate decided whether the directorate will or will not review the document during wglc. 3. The comments of someone that been assigned to a directorate review during wglc is sent to the rest of the directorate and to the working group(s). 4. When the comments during wglc has been addressed, the directorate reviewer acknowledge that he/she is comfortable with how his/her comments has been addressed (same as any other reviewer). I don't think there is a problem of too much "churn" during the wglc phase; at least it is possible to manage. I also don't see why the AD can't request a review from the directorate of any document where "help is needed" after the publication request, the only thing that is needed is that we probably should take care not to assign the same review to the same person twice. /Loa On 2013-08-26 16:47, Adrian Farrel wrote: > Hi, > > Currently the Routing Directorate does reviews for the ADs roughly during IETF > last call. They only review on request, and they only focus on: > - documents from other areas that the ADs think might have an impact on routing > - routing area I-Ds that the ADs want help with (i.e., not all routing area > I-Ds) > > I've been getting a little uncomfortable with the level of issues I raise during > AD review (when publication is requested). Possibly this is happening because I > am a picky bugger who complains about too much stuff. Possibly it is happening > because WG development and last call is not catching enough issues. > > It is reasonable to expect the ADs to continue to perform detailed review at > publication request, but this is a substantial load on the ADs and I wonder that > it must be frustrating to the author and WGs to get this level of review after > the WG process has completed. > > I see two options here: > > 1. AD review to take place during WG last call. > Downside is that this is quite a small window to get AD time in. > Downside is that the document may get recycled considerably as a result of WG > last call so the AD is not reviewing the "best" product of the WG. > Upside is that the WG is fully involved in results of the AD review. > Upside is that the process is more streamlined. > > 2. Routing directorate review takes place during WG last call. > Downside is that the document may get recycled considerably as a result of WG > last call so the review does not catch the "best" product of the WG. > Upside is that the WG is fully involved in results of the directorate review. > Upside is that the document should be in better condition when the AD sees it. > > Combining options 1 and 2 is also possible. > > Do y'all have any thoughts on this? > > Thanks, > Adrian > > > -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com Tue Aug 27 02:52:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D8AB21E80DB; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:52:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.702 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tVIrtD3vF3hX; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com (mail1.bemta3.messagelabs.com [195.245.230.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AEC721E80CF; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [85.158.137.68:36524] by server-17.bemta-3.messagelabs.com id 12/F4-03449-3E17C125; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:31:15 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Alexander.Vainshtein@ecitele.com X-Msg-Ref: server-5.tower-31.messagelabs.com!1377595860!4029601!9 X-Originating-IP: [147.234.242.234] X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.9.11; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 4193 invoked from network); 27 Aug 2013 09:31:14 -0000 Received: from ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com (HELO ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com) (147.234.242.234) by server-5.tower-31.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Aug 2013 09:31:14 -0000 X-AuditID: 93eaf2e7-b7f8f6d000006f08-24-521c71e17649 Received: from ILPTWPVEXCA02.ecitele.com ( [172.31.244.232]) by ilptbmg01-out.ecitele.com (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 08.91.28424.1E17C125; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 12:31:13 +0300 (IDT) Received: from ILPTWPVEXMB01.ecitele.com ([fe80::f152:8eaf:8fb0:a5da]) by ILPTWPVEXCA02.ecitele.com ([fe80::c473:490d:3a7e:e34a%12]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 12:31:12 +0300 From: Alexander Vainshtein To: Loa Andersson , "adrian@olddog.co.uk" Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews Thread-Index: Ac6iayaq1nJ2Yjb6Tiyv5xAoaay6xAAgp1cAAAZitSA= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:31:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> <521C6FC4.2080807@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <521C6FC4.2080807@pi.nu> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.4.212.191] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUy+dWnV7oPC2WCDCb0KFk8OLyQzWLBmqfs DkweS5b8ZApgjGpgtEnMy8svSSxJVUhJLU62VQooyixLTK5UUshMsVUyVFIoyElMTs1NzSux VUosKEjNS1Gy41LAADZAZZl5Cql5yfkpmXnptkqewf66FhamlrqGSnZqyobG1lwhGZnFCqm6 uYmZOQq5qcXFiempCkCRhC3MGU/XbmUs+KJVcff4SZYGxh7FLkZODgkBE4k1HZOZIWwxiQv3 1rOB2EICBxklTj4T62LkArKPMkrMfL2TCSTBJmArsWn1XbAiEQEviYnXH7KD2MwCERKbX2wE quHgEBZwlPg3txSixEli5csdjBC2lcTRjS9ZQGwWAVWJmcs/gdm8AgESDw69ZoHYGyqx9/1p sJGcQDVLjz8Hu40R6Lbvp9YwQawSl7j1ZD4TxM0CEkv2nIe6X1Ti5eN/rBC2gkTzyn5WiHod iQW7P7FB2NoSyxa+ZobYKyhxcuYTlgmMYrOQjJ2FpGUWkpZZSFoWMLKsYhTNzCkoScpNNzDU S03OLEnNSdVLzs/dxAhJEc93MP6ar3KI0RXo14nMUtzJ+cAUk1cSb2xggJujJM67vCHcX0gg HZhUslNTC1KL4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTCyuPccvOq5rKsy+a2GjI3TH+uOt4fE9vt5JSboGO9r 6fxu9cZu67NwYReLszWvfh7SEbEu05g4Z1Lssn/O3tmLJimtEM1xyxfk1L/fE/9O2kauSPjs 04x3l775ftzlsO7ALBW/Szysj83XirW+6035W/cq5+zszKPzp89ZsqumgOudlszDuL1KLMUZ iYZazEXFiQBatNh+CQMAAA== Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , "rtg-chairs@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:52:54 -0000 Loa, Adrian and all, I concur with Loa. The process he proposes looks quite reasonable to me. Of course, there is always a possibility of the WG LC missing some serious i= ssues with the document (with or without additional reviewers from RTG-DIR := -), leaving it to the AD to catch what should be caught much earlier. Hopefu= lly this would be a rare case, and involving the RTG-DIR review in the WG LC= (where found appropriate) would help. My 2c, Sasha > -----Original Message----- > From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf= Of > Loa Andersson > Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 12:22 PM > To: adrian@olddog.co.uk > Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; rtg-chairs@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews > > Adrian, > > I agree that the AD will need to do an AD review at the time of > publication request. > > I also agree that we should do anything we can do to improve the > quality of the documents we request publication for. My take is > also that I won't expect more than one review of the AD for any > "normal" document. > > I'm not certain about the argument "that the document may get recycled > considerably as a result of WG" and consequently the AD or the > directorate will not review the best of the product from the working > group. I find it slightly cross-purpose; the working group last call is > there (partly) to bring the document up to a point where it is of such > quality that the publication request is possible. Kind of saying that we > are still in a "improvement phase". > > At least the the mpls wg we "freezes" the document during anything that > is a review team effort or a wglc. We want all reviewers to look at the > same version of the document. > > When the wglc is closed - there is also one phase that needs to involve > reviewers. The authors will address the comments, and before that phase > is done we require that a reviewer acknowledge that the comments he/she > had is correctly addressed. > > My proposal would be that we try this: > > 1. When the working group chairs start a working group last call, this > is also sent to the AD (normal practice today) and the the chair of > the directorate. > 2. AD and chair of directorate decided whether the directorate will or > will not review the document during wglc. > 3. The comments of someone that been assigned to a directorate review > during wglc is sent to the rest of the directorate and to the working > group(s). > 4. When the comments during wglc has been addressed, the directorate > reviewer acknowledge that he/she is comfortable with how his/her > comments has been addressed (same as any other reviewer). > > I don't think there is a problem of too much "churn" during the wglc > phase; at least it is possible to manage. > > I also don't see why the AD can't request a review from the directorate > of any document where "help is needed" after the publication request, > the only thing that is needed is that we probably should take care not > to assign the same review to the same person twice. > > /Loa > > On 2013-08-26 16:47, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Currently the Routing Directorate does reviews for the ADs roughly durin= g > IETF > > last call. They only review on request, and they only focus on: > > - documents from other areas that the ADs think might have an impact on > routing > > - routing area I-Ds that the ADs want help with (i.e., not all routing a= rea > > I-Ds) > > > > I've been getting a little uncomfortable with the level of issues I rais= e during > > AD review (when publication is requested). Possibly this is happening > because I > > am a picky bugger who complains about too much stuff. Possibly it is > happening > > because WG development and last call is not catching enough issues. > > > > It is reasonable to expect the ADs to continue to perform detailed revie= w at > > publication request, but this is a substantial load on the ADs and I won= der > that > > it must be frustrating to the author and WGs to get this level of review= after > > the WG process has completed. > > > > I see two options here: > > > > 1. AD review to take place during WG last call. > > Downside is that this is quite a small window to get AD time in. > > Downside is that the document may get recycled considerably as a result= of > WG > > last call so the AD is not reviewing the "best" product of the WG. > > Upside is that the WG is fully involved in results of the AD review. > > Upside is that the process is more streamlined. > > > > 2. Routing directorate review takes place during WG last call. > > Downside is that the document may get recycled considerably as a result= of > WG > > last call so the review does not catch the "best" product of the WG. > > Upside is that the WG is fully involved in results of the directorate r= eview. > > Upside is that the document should be in better condition when the AD se= es > it. > > > > Combining options 1 and 2 is also possible. > > > > Do y'all have any thoughts on this? > > > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > > > > > > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com > Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu > Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains informat= ion which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If yo= u have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phon= e or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof. From dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel-lucent.com Tue Aug 27 08:10:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5DB711E819D; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:10:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cuuMZn6i3fPd; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AB4E11E819A; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-122.lucent.com [135.239.2.122]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id r7RF9SKs027691 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:09:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr712wxchhub03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.74]) by fr711usmtp1.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id r7RF9OSH004735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:09:24 +0200 Received: from FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.3.63]) by FR712WXCHHUB03.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.74]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:09:24 +0200 From: "Papadimitriou, Dimitri (Dimitri)" To: "adrian@olddog.co.uk" , "rtg-chairs@ietf.org" , "rtg-dir@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews Thread-Index: Ac6iayaq1nJ2Yjb6Tiyv5xAoaay6xAAkos1g Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:09:24 +0000 Message-ID: <84675BAA8C49154AB81E2587BE8BDF8308A81D50@FR711WXCHMBA07.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> References: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.41] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35 Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:10:02 -0000 Hi Adrian, All, RAD review would better take place during WG LC (opt.2) in particular when = WG LC comments are limited.=20 The downside pointed here below can be circumvented by asking the reviewer = to take a look at the revised document (and points to possibly remaining is= sues but this is often the case when addressing LC comments). Thanks, -dimitri. > -----Original Message----- > From: rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtg-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behal= f > Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 16:48 > To: rtg-chairs@ietf.org; rtg-dir@ietf.org > Subject: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Currently the Routing Directorate does reviews for the ADs roughly during > IETF > last call. They only review on request, and they only focus on: > - documents from other areas that the ADs think might have an impact on > routing > - routing area I-Ds that the ADs want help with (i.e., not all routing > area > I-Ds) >=20 > I've been getting a little uncomfortable with the level of issues I raise > during > AD review (when publication is requested). Possibly this is happening > because I > am a picky bugger who complains about too much stuff. Possibly it is > happening > because WG development and last call is not catching enough issues. >=20 > It is reasonable to expect the ADs to continue to perform detailed review > at > publication request, but this is a substantial load on the ADs and I > wonder that > it must be frustrating to the author and WGs to get this level of review > after > the WG process has completed. >=20 > I see two options here: >=20 > 1. AD review to take place during WG last call. > Downside is that this is quite a small window to get AD time in. > Downside is that the document may get recycled considerably as a result o= f > WG > last call so the AD is not reviewing the "best" product of the WG. > Upside is that the WG is fully involved in results of the AD review. > Upside is that the process is more streamlined. >=20 > 2. Routing directorate review takes place during WG last call. > Downside is that the document may get recycled considerably as a result o= f > WG > last call so the review does not catch the "best" product of the WG. > Upside is that the WG is fully involved in results of the directorate > review. > Upside is that the document should be in better condition when the AD see= s > it. >=20 > Combining options 1 and 2 is also possible. >=20 > Do y'all have any thoughts on this? >=20 > Thanks, > Adrian >=20 >=20 From russw@riw.us Wed Aug 28 10:44:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB8C21F9DBA; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:44:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OgIeyp7IlibR; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from da31.namelessnet.net (da31.namelessnet.net [74.124.205.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624B721F9CD9; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpe-098-122-147-095.nc.res.rr.com ([98.122.147.95] helo=RussPC) by da31.namelessnet.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VEjms-0002E6-KJ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:44:10 -0700 From: "Russ White" To: "'Alexander Vainshtein'" , "'Loa Andersson'" , References: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> <521C6FC4.2080807@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:44:19 -0400 Message-ID: <026901cea416$39a7b110$acf71330$@riw.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQEtGZDufX670jdoKmd625kjOsKZYQF7KlLBAK3CqTWa3LGC8A== Content-Language: en-us X-Antivirus-Scanner: Seems clean. You should still use an Antivirus Scanner Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, rtg-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:44:21 -0000 > I concur with Loa. The process he proposes looks quite reasonable to me. I would agree with this, as well... Russ From akatlas@gmail.com Wed Aug 28 10:53:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2904A11E81AF; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:53:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.505 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S1cL7UyiLYFa; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:53:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2B4411E8196; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id es8so3389424obc.14 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:53:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hj89+Yb/Y1BxIlm4vymJ8RI57k0pkcYxRV4kZ+OVftI=; b=aT/rpRcBcbfSp1qWo6+aC0eyu0fVLd6G4xLulCnO4UE5zeFu9VolCCoL7uQymOhkAz 5ya1AmZ2HmH06HkEqXfqCTudZwJUVC91S4yNcsLXw6sJqSgV0hiB6boxoptQZilngdC4 +sZ0vfPYq+TpcFk7TnrjaZgo36QxQcDAay+mKNGSUYGhFRkiKQKN7hpnthp14CVOBWnO wXDgSoWXh97YcJpWyjK/GRpHmHeEcQXCCpdyNBBqGdy8+bH2fKGJG9xFSS1xaaqvevOl zwo93rCC3bO/65irOFW/GxqV9MvNJULpIVKW1sg4QudCmB3amVL9wEbkoSUePXUQ3Oxu TXMA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.59.130 with SMTP id z2mr1873786oeq.65.1377712407414; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:53:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.89.105 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:53:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <026901cea416$39a7b110$acf71330$@riw.us> References: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> <521C6FC4.2080807@pi.nu> <026901cea416$39a7b110$acf71330$@riw.us> Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:53:27 -0400 Message-ID: From: Alia Atlas To: Russ White Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0800a58df804e505aaeb Cc: Adrian Farrel , Alexander Vainshtein , rtg-chairs@ietf.org, "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , Loa Andersson Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:53:59 -0000 --089e013d0800a58df804e505aaeb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +1 for all the content that adds :-) On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Russ White wrote: > > > I concur with Loa. The process he proposes looks quite reasonable to me. > > I would agree with this, as well... > > Russ > > --089e013d0800a58df804e505aaeb Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1 for all the content that adds :-)


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:44 = PM, Russ White <russw@riw.us> wrote:

> I concur with Loa. The process he proposes looks quite reasonable to m= e.

I would agree with this, as well...

Russ


--089e013d0800a58df804e505aaeb-- From acee.lindem@ericsson.com Wed Aug 28 10:57:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4710521E8050; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32ECKxlj2nR5; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B9621E8054; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:57:05 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7fda8e0000024c6-0a-521e39f17c4a Received: from EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.93]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 32.99.09414.1F93E125; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 19:57:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB101.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.118]) by EUSAAHC007.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.93]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:57:04 -0400 From: Acee Lindem To: Alia Atlas Thread-Topic: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews Thread-Index: Ac6iayaq1nJ2Yjb6Tiyv5xAoaay6xAAvUm4AAABQeAAAQ4NogAAAUamAAAAgMIA= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:57:04 +0000 Message-ID: <94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE4703035B1B@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> References: <016a01cea26b$41cd5860$c5680920$@olddog.co.uk> <521C6FC4.2080807@pi.nu> <026901cea416$39a7b110$acf71330$@riw.us> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE4703035B1Beusaamb101erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprNIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPrO5HS7kgg32PFC1+9Nxgtvj08BKz xdStH5gt/s2dw2zx4PBCNosFa56yW6ybe4Ddgd1j07/jjB47Z91l91iy5CeTx4rNKxk9Zk1v Y/M4/XAyewBbFJdNSmpOZllqkb5dAlfGntf/mAr281esnnuTvYFxAW8XIyeHhICJxIa1D1kh bDGJC/fWs4HYQgJHGSVebRPtYuQCspczSnxY+xUswSagI/H80T/mLkYODhEBJYmpL4VBapgF vjBKvJ23ih2kRljAUeLYj/tgQ0UEnCRWvtzBCFHvJ3FsmTRImEVAVaL10wsmEJtXwFdi8Ycd zBB7+5gkHq3jASnnFAiUWL03HiTMCHTa91NrwMqZBcQlbj2ZzwRxsoDEkj3nmSFsUYmXj/9B vaIsseTJfhaI+nyJOV/6WCBWCUqcnPmEZQKj6Cwko2YhKZuFpAwiriOxYPcnNghbW2LZwtfM MPaZA4+BejmAbGuJUzeKkZUsYORYxchRWpxalptuZLCJERjBxyTYdHcw7nlpeYhRmoNFSZx3 ld6ZQCGB9MSS1OzU1ILUovii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2Mqo8+JB+97Kizh1Ew8aJAr2WL9ve2KvdH B5NXvzjzeY2nsnCy0+wwZlHzTzrm1x4w1M1+/HaRq13Ambk+n77suLlrAs/qmL0ZV17u7Lix OXeqhL9s3oLs8LKCkva2mVPm6cr1fkzkVtFRE8qev2taQOV3nT+izKvFFL3EDHZX7bcIfVeq tOOuEktxRqKhFnNRcSIAX+gm7K4CAAA= Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" , Alexander Vainshtein , Russ White , "" , Adrian Farrel , Loa Andersson Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:57:16 -0000 --_000_94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE4703035B1Beusaamb101erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Loa's proposal is fine with me as well. Acee On Aug 28, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Alia Atlas wrote: +1 for all the content that adds :-) On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Russ White > wrote: > I concur with Loa. The process he proposes looks quite reasonable to me. I would agree with this, as well... Russ --_000_94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE4703035B1Beusaamb101erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Loa's proposal is fine with me as well. 
Acee

On Aug 28, 2013, at 1:53 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:

+1 for all the content that adds :-)


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Russ White <russw@riw.us><= /span> wrote:

> I concur with Loa. The process he proposes looks quite reasonable to m= e.

I would agree with this, as well...

Russ



--_000_94A203EA12AECE4BA92D42DBFFE0AE4703035B1Beusaamb101erics_-- From shares@ndzh.com Mon Aug 26 16:52:16 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39D111E80ED; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:52:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.471 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.471 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mZDVBeCp7gUf; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:52:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (hhc-web3.hickoryhill-consulting.com [64.9.205.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15AA11E80EA; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:52:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=166.137.182.76; Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:51:57 -0700 Message-ID: Importance: normal From: Susan Hares To: Adrian Farrel , rtg-chairs@ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--_com.android.email_5337915920104020" X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:06:48 -0700 Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] Thinking about Routing Directorate reviews X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Susan Hares List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:52:16 -0000 ----_com.android.email_5337915920104020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 QWdyZWUgd2cgbGMgPSBkaXJlY3JvcmF0ZQoKQ2FuIEkgaGVscD8KClNVRQoKClNlbnQgdmlhIHRo ZSBTYW1zdW5nIEdBTEFYWSBTwq40LCBhbiBBVCZUIDRHIExURSBzbWFydHBob25lCgotLS0tLS0t LSBPcmlnaW5hbCBtZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tLS0tCkZyb206IEFkcmlhbiBGYXJyZWwgPGFkcmlhbkBv bGRkb2cuY28udWs+IApEYXRlOiAwOC8yNi8yMDEzICA3OjQ3IEFNICAoR01ULTA4OjAwKSAKVG86 IHJ0Zy1jaGFpcnNAaWV0Zi5vcmcscnRnLWRpckBpZXRmLm9yZyAKU3ViamVjdDogVGhpbmtpbmcg YWJvdXQgUm91dGluZyBEaXJlY3RvcmF0ZSByZXZpZXdzIAogCkhpLAoKQ3VycmVudGx5IHRoZSBS b3V0aW5nIERpcmVjdG9yYXRlIGRvZXMgcmV2aWV3cyBmb3IgdGhlIEFEcyByb3VnaGx5IGR1cmlu ZyBJRVRGCmxhc3QgY2FsbC4gVGhleSBvbmx5IHJldmlldyBvbiByZXF1ZXN0LCBhbmQgdGhleSBv bmx5IGZvY3VzIG9uOgotIGRvY3VtZW50cyBmcm9tIG90aGVyIGFyZWFzIHRoYXQgdGhlIEFEcyB0 aGluayBtaWdodCBoYXZlIGFuIGltcGFjdCBvbiByb3V0aW5nCi0gcm91dGluZyBhcmVhIEktRHMg dGhhdCB0aGUgQURzIHdhbnQgaGVscCB3aXRoIChpLmUuLCBub3QgYWxsIHJvdXRpbmcgYXJlYQpJ LURzKQoKSSd2ZSBiZWVuIGdldHRpbmcgYSBsaXR0bGUgdW5jb21mb3J0YWJsZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBs ZXZlbCBvZiBpc3N1ZXMgSSByYWlzZSBkdXJpbmcKQUQgcmV2aWV3ICh3aGVuIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9u IGlzIHJlcXVlc3RlZCkuIFBvc3NpYmx5IHRoaXMgaXMgaGFwcGVuaW5nIGJlY2F1c2UgSQphbSBh IHBpY2t5IGJ1Z2dlciB3aG8gY29tcGxhaW5zIGFib3V0IHRvbyBtdWNoIHN0dWZmLiBQb3NzaWJs eSBpdCBpcyBoYXBwZW5pbmcKYmVjYXVzZSBXRyBkZXZlbG9wbWVudCBhbmQgbGFzdCBjYWxsIGlz IG5vdCBjYXRjaGluZyBlbm91Z2ggaXNzdWVzLgoKSXQgaXMgcmVhc29uYWJsZSB0byBleHBlY3Qg dGhlIEFEcyB0byBjb250aW51ZSB0byBwZXJmb3JtIGRldGFpbGVkIHJldmlldyBhdApwdWJsaWNh dGlvbiByZXF1ZXN0LCBidXQgdGhpcyBpcyBhIHN1YnN0YW50aWFsIGxvYWQgb24gdGhlIEFEcyBh bmQgSSB3b25kZXIgdGhhdAppdCBtdXN0IGJlIGZydXN0cmF0aW5nIHRvIHRoZSBhdXRob3IgYW5k IFdHcyB0byBnZXQgdGhpcyBsZXZlbCBvZiByZXZpZXcgYWZ0ZXIKdGhlIFdHIHByb2Nlc3MgaGFz IGNvbXBsZXRlZC4KCkkgc2VlIHR3byBvcHRpb25zIGhlcmU6CgoxLiBBRCByZXZpZXcgdG8gdGFr ZSBwbGFjZSBkdXJpbmcgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsLgpEb3duc2lkZSBpcyB0aGF0IHRoaXMgaXMgcXVp dGUgYSBzbWFsbCB3aW5kb3cgdG8gZ2V0IEFEIHRpbWUgaW4uCkRvd25zaWRlIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhl IGRvY3VtZW50IG1heSBnZXQgcmVjeWNsZWQgY29uc2lkZXJhYmx5IGFzIGEgcmVzdWx0IG9mIFdH Cmxhc3QgY2FsbCBzbyB0aGUgQUQgaXMgbm90IHJldmlld2luZyB0aGUgImJlc3QiIHByb2R1Y3Qg b2YgdGhlIFdHLgpVcHNpZGUgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgV0cgaXMgZnVsbHkgaW52b2x2ZWQgaW4gcmVz dWx0cyBvZiB0aGUgQUQgcmV2aWV3LgpVcHNpZGUgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgcHJvY2VzcyBpcyBtb3Jl IHN0cmVhbWxpbmVkLgoKMi4gUm91dGluZyBkaXJlY3RvcmF0ZSByZXZpZXcgdGFrZXMgcGxhY2Ug ZHVyaW5nIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbC4KRG93bnNpZGUgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgbWF5IGdl dCByZWN5Y2xlZCBjb25zaWRlcmFibHkgYXMgYSByZXN1bHQgb2YgV0cKbGFzdCBjYWxsIHNvIHRo ZSByZXZpZXcgZG9lcyBub3QgY2F0Y2ggdGhlICJiZXN0IiBwcm9kdWN0IG9mIHRoZSBXRy4KVXBz aWRlwqAgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgV0cgaXMgZnVsbHkgaW52b2x2ZWQgaW4gcmVzdWx0cyBvZiB0aGUg ZGlyZWN0b3JhdGUgcmV2aWV3LgpVcHNpZGUgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgc2hvdWxkIGJl IGluIGJldHRlciBjb25kaXRpb24gd2hlbiB0aGUgQUQgc2VlcyBpdC4KCkNvbWJpbmluZyBvcHRp b25zIDEgYW5kIDIgaXMgYWxzbyBwb3NzaWJsZS4KCkRvIHknYWxsIGhhdmUgYW55IHRob3VnaHRz IG9uIHRoaXM/CgpUaGFua3MsCkFkcmlhbgoKCgo= ----_com.android.email_5337915920104020 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWw+PGhlYWQ+PG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj0iQ29udGVudC1UeXBlIiBjb250ZW50PSJ0ZXh0 L2h0bWw7IGNoYXJzZXQ9VVRGLTgiPjwvaGVhZD48Ym9keSA+PGRpdj5BZ3JlZSB3ZyBsYyA9IGRp cmVjcm9yYXRlPC9kaXY+PGRpdj48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj5DYW4gSSBoZWxwPzwvZGl2PjxkaXY+ PGJyPjwvZGl2PjxkaXY+U1VFPC9kaXY+PGRpdj48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRpdj48YnI+PC9kaXY+PGRp dj48ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSJmb250LXNpemU6NzUlO2NvbG9yOiM1NzU3NTciPlNlbnQgdmlhIHRoZSBT YW1zdW5nIEdBTEFYWSBTwq40LCBhbiBBVCZhbXA7VCA0RyBMVEUgc21hcnRwaG9uZTwvZGl2Pjwv ZGl2Pjxicj48YnI+PGJyPi0tLS0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIG1lc3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0tLS08YnI+RnJv bTogQWRyaWFuIEZhcnJlbCAmbHQ7YWRyaWFuQG9sZGRvZy5jby51ayZndDsgPGJyPkRhdGU6IDA4 LzI2LzIwMTMgIDc6NDcgQU0gIChHTVQtMDg6MDApIDxicj5UbzogcnRnLWNoYWlyc0BpZXRmLm9y ZyxydGctZGlyQGlldGYub3JnIDxicj5TdWJqZWN0OiBUaGlua2luZyBhYm91dCBSb3V0aW5nIERp cmVjdG9yYXRlIHJldmlld3MgPGJyPiA8YnI+PGJyPkhpLDxicj48YnI+Q3VycmVudGx5IHRoZSBS b3V0aW5nIERpcmVjdG9yYXRlIGRvZXMgcmV2aWV3cyBmb3IgdGhlIEFEcyByb3VnaGx5IGR1cmlu ZyBJRVRGPGJyPmxhc3QgY2FsbC4gVGhleSBvbmx5IHJldmlldyBvbiByZXF1ZXN0LCBhbmQgdGhl eSBvbmx5IGZvY3VzIG9uOjxicj4tIGRvY3VtZW50cyBmcm9tIG90aGVyIGFyZWFzIHRoYXQgdGhl IEFEcyB0aGluayBtaWdodCBoYXZlIGFuIGltcGFjdCBvbiByb3V0aW5nPGJyPi0gcm91dGluZyBh cmVhIEktRHMgdGhhdCB0aGUgQURzIHdhbnQgaGVscCB3aXRoIChpLmUuLCBub3QgYWxsIHJvdXRp bmcgYXJlYTxicj5JLURzKTxicj48YnI+SSd2ZSBiZWVuIGdldHRpbmcgYSBsaXR0bGUgdW5jb21m b3J0YWJsZSB3aXRoIHRoZSBsZXZlbCBvZiBpc3N1ZXMgSSByYWlzZSBkdXJpbmc8YnI+QUQgcmV2 aWV3ICh3aGVuIHB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIGlzIHJlcXVlc3RlZCkuIFBvc3NpYmx5IHRoaXMgaXMgaGFw cGVuaW5nIGJlY2F1c2UgSTxicj5hbSBhIHBpY2t5IGJ1Z2dlciB3aG8gY29tcGxhaW5zIGFib3V0 IHRvbyBtdWNoIHN0dWZmLiBQb3NzaWJseSBpdCBpcyBoYXBwZW5pbmc8YnI+YmVjYXVzZSBXRyBk ZXZlbG9wbWVudCBhbmQgbGFzdCBjYWxsIGlzIG5vdCBjYXRjaGluZyBlbm91Z2ggaXNzdWVzLjxi cj48YnI+SXQgaXMgcmVhc29uYWJsZSB0byBleHBlY3QgdGhlIEFEcyB0byBjb250aW51ZSB0byBw ZXJmb3JtIGRldGFpbGVkIHJldmlldyBhdDxicj5wdWJsaWNhdGlvbiByZXF1ZXN0LCBidXQgdGhp cyBpcyBhIHN1YnN0YW50aWFsIGxvYWQgb24gdGhlIEFEcyBhbmQgSSB3b25kZXIgdGhhdDxicj5p dCBtdXN0IGJlIGZydXN0cmF0aW5nIHRvIHRoZSBhdXRob3IgYW5kIFdHcyB0byBnZXQgdGhpcyBs ZXZlbCBvZiByZXZpZXcgYWZ0ZXI8YnI+dGhlIFdHIHByb2Nlc3MgaGFzIGNvbXBsZXRlZC48YnI+ PGJyPkkgc2VlIHR3byBvcHRpb25zIGhlcmU6PGJyPjxicj4xLiBBRCByZXZpZXcgdG8gdGFrZSBw bGFjZSBkdXJpbmcgV0cgbGFzdCBjYWxsLjxicj5Eb3duc2lkZSBpcyB0aGF0IHRoaXMgaXMgcXVp dGUgYSBzbWFsbCB3aW5kb3cgdG8gZ2V0IEFEIHRpbWUgaW4uPGJyPkRvd25zaWRlIGlzIHRoYXQg dGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IG1heSBnZXQgcmVjeWNsZWQgY29uc2lkZXJhYmx5IGFzIGEgcmVzdWx0IG9m IFdHPGJyPmxhc3QgY2FsbCBzbyB0aGUgQUQgaXMgbm90IHJldmlld2luZyB0aGUgImJlc3QiIHBy b2R1Y3Qgb2YgdGhlIFdHLjxicj5VcHNpZGUgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgV0cgaXMgZnVsbHkgaW52b2x2 ZWQgaW4gcmVzdWx0cyBvZiB0aGUgQUQgcmV2aWV3Ljxicj5VcHNpZGUgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgcHJv Y2VzcyBpcyBtb3JlIHN0cmVhbWxpbmVkLjxicj48YnI+Mi4gUm91dGluZyBkaXJlY3RvcmF0ZSBy ZXZpZXcgdGFrZXMgcGxhY2UgZHVyaW5nIFdHIGxhc3QgY2FsbC48YnI+RG93bnNpZGUgaXMgdGhh dCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgbWF5IGdldCByZWN5Y2xlZCBjb25zaWRlcmFibHkgYXMgYSByZXN1bHQg b2YgV0c8YnI+bGFzdCBjYWxsIHNvIHRoZSByZXZpZXcgZG9lcyBub3QgY2F0Y2ggdGhlICJiZXN0 IiBwcm9kdWN0IG9mIHRoZSBXRy48YnI+VXBzaWRlJm5ic3A7IGlzIHRoYXQgdGhlIFdHIGlzIGZ1 bGx5IGludm9sdmVkIGluIHJlc3VsdHMgb2YgdGhlIGRpcmVjdG9yYXRlIHJldmlldy48YnI+VXBz aWRlIGlzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHNob3VsZCBiZSBpbiBiZXR0ZXIgY29uZGl0aW9uIHdo ZW4gdGhlIEFEIHNlZXMgaXQuPGJyPjxicj5Db21iaW5pbmcgb3B0aW9ucyAxIGFuZCAyIGlzIGFs c28gcG9zc2libGUuPGJyPjxicj5EbyB5J2FsbCBoYXZlIGFueSB0aG91Z2h0cyBvbiB0aGlzPzxi cj48YnI+VGhhbmtzLDxicj5BZHJpYW48YnI+PGJyPjxicj48YnI+PC9ib2R5Pg== ----_com.android.email_5337915920104020-- From takeda.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp Thu Aug 29 22:47:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A92311E819C; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:47:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.09 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZWKUzJPFUjqJ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:47:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.148]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB2A11E819B; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.149]) by tama500.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7U5l56A007659; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:47:05 +0900 Received: from mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB3CE013D; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:47:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.5.247]) by mfs6.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20CEDE0141; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:47:05 +0900 (JST) Received: from imf.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (webmail.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.130]) by imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id r7U5l5MQ014566; Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:47:05 +0900 Message-Id: <201308300547.r7U5l5MQ014566@imail2.m.ecl.ntt.co.jp> To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org From: Tomonori TAKEDA Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 14:47:05 +0900 X-Mailer: WebMail V3.7 PL3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-TM-AS-MML: No Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework.all@tools.ietf.org Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 05:47:19 -0000 Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g709-framework-14.txt Reviewer: Tomonori Takeda Review Date: 30 August 2013 IETF LC End Date: 02 September 2013 Intended Status: Informational o Summary: This document describes framework for GMPLS/PCE control of OTN and impacts on GMPLS/PCE protocols. Overview of OTN is mentioned, which is helpful to understand the document. o Comments: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. (I think these are mostly related to clarification questions.) o Major Issues: No major issues found. o Minor Issues: 1) In Section 5.3., it says the following requirement for GMPLS routing. - Support different priorities for resource reservation I think this is a valid requirement, but I do not think this is specific to OTN. Does this imply the need for protocol extensions or just the usage of protocols? 2) Section 5.4., it says: Furthermore, since multiplexing hierarchy was not allowed by the legacy OTN referenced by [RFC4328], .... By reading RFC4328 section 2, it refers to ODU multiplexing. Am I missing something? 3) In Section 5.5., it says. Note that this case is supported by the procedures defined in [RFC3473] as a different Switching Capability/Type value is used for the different control plane versions. I am not sure which part of RFC3473 metions such procedures. Could you please point it? o Nits: Section 4.1 s/Lo ODU/LO ODU/ Section 4.1 s/substitute/substituted Section 5.6 s/section 5.2.1/section 5.2 Thanks, Tomonori From loa@pi.nu Sat Aug 31 03:22:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AE5F21E8064 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:22:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ggjtGnR+1Pfy for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8BF421F9E69 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.133] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFE4718014F6 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:22:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5221C3DE.9090206@pi.nu> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:22:22 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rtg-dir@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [RTG-DIR] The rtg-dir on the net? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:22:29 -0000 All, I wonder if it would be a good idea to use the same input tool for rtg-dir reviews as we have e.g. for shepherd write-ups. I.e. a template on the IETF web that you can access, read, edit and save from a web-browser if you are the reviewer. Readable by anyone else. Ideally I guess it the review should be directly accessible from the document page in the data-tracker, but at least as a start we could at least keep them off the rtg-dir page. /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From jmh@joelhalpern.com Sat Aug 31 03:36:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18E8C21F994A for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:36:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xyRdNJN5eZEj for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A16021F9B8C for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:35:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188301C0519; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:35:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (c213-89-137-101.bredband.comhem.se [213.89.137.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4CE9E1C049E; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5221C709.9000104@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 06:35:53 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Loa Andersson References: <5221C3DE.9090206@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <5221C3DE.9090206@pi.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] The rtg-dir on the net? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:36:02 -0000 I strongly prefer to do my directorate reviews (and other reviews) in email rather than web forms. I understand that there are some advantages to using tooling for information management. Note that in practice the shepherd tool means that there is an extra step in the process. You prepare the writeup, and then you have to enter it into the tool. And mistakes happen at that point. Yours, Joel On 8/31/13 6:22 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: > All, > > I wonder if it would be a good idea to use the same input tool for > rtg-dir reviews as we have e.g. for shepherd write-ups. > > I.e. a template on the IETF web that you can access, read, edit and save > from a web-browser if you are the reviewer. Readable by anyone else. > > Ideally I guess it the review should be directly accessible from the > document page in the data-tracker, but at least as a start we could > at least keep them off the rtg-dir page. > > /Loa > > From loa@pi.nu Sat Aug 31 03:40:55 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCC4F21F9957 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:40:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eqcE49wgyaMZ for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:40:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87FC21F91BF for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.133] (81-236-221-144-no93.tbcn.telia.com [81.236.221.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 416E218014F6; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:40:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5221C831.2090308@pi.nu> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:40:49 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Joel M. Halpern" References: <5221C3DE.9090206@pi.nu> <5221C709.9000104@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <5221C709.9000104@joelhalpern.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] The rtg-dir on the net? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:40:56 -0000 Joel, no there is no extra step - you can do the shepherd write-up in a tool that is extremely similar to the editor I have for e.g. Thunderbird. And you don't have to complete it in one go, just save the temporary version it will not be active until you do the final submit. One benefit is that I only have to keep one version, that I can point people to if I want to ask questions or have feed-back. /Loa On 2013-08-31 12:35, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I strongly prefer to do my directorate reviews (and other reviews) in > email rather than web forms. I understand that there are some > advantages to using tooling for information management. > Note that in practice the shepherd tool means that there is an extra > step in the process. You prepare the writeup, and then you have to > enter it into the tool. And mistakes happen at that point. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 8/31/13 6:22 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: >> All, >> >> I wonder if it would be a good idea to use the same input tool for >> rtg-dir reviews as we have e.g. for shepherd write-ups. >> >> I.e. a template on the IETF web that you can access, read, edit and save >> from a web-browser if you are the reviewer. Readable by anyone else. >> >> Ideally I guess it the review should be directly accessible from the >> document page in the data-tracker, but at least as a start we could >> at least keep them off the rtg-dir page. >> >> /Loa >> >> -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64 From jmh@joelhalpern.com Sat Aug 31 03:45:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFB421E8100 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:45:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZUKtWsN1s0tb for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF7221E80BB for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:45:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321FD1BC83C3; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:44:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (c213-89-137-101.bredband.comhem.se [213.89.137.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C9521BC83C1; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 03:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5221C920.4020901@joelhalpern.com> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 06:44:48 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Loa Andersson References: <5221C3DE.9090206@pi.nu> <5221C709.9000104@joelhalpern.com> <5221C831.2090308@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <5221C831.2090308@pi.nu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] The rtg-dir on the net? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:45:12 -0000 I find editing on the web form much harder, even if in detail it is similar to other interfaces. And I find the email interface for reviews much easier to work with. The interaction between off-line and on-line processes is much cleaner and easier to tune to any particular reviewers preferences. Yours, Joel PS: Several different review teams I am on have had this debate, and while it is worth having here again, it is worth noting that it has come out in favor of email muultiple times. On 8/31/13 6:40 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: > Joel, > > no there is no extra step - you can do the shepherd write-up in a > tool that is extremely similar to the editor I have for e.g. > Thunderbird. And you don't have to complete it in one go, just > save the temporary version it will not be active until you do > the final submit. > > One benefit is that I only have to keep one version, that I can > point people to if I want to ask questions or have feed-back. > > /Loa > > On 2013-08-31 12:35, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> I strongly prefer to do my directorate reviews (and other reviews) in >> email rather than web forms. I understand that there are some >> advantages to using tooling for information management. >> Note that in practice the shepherd tool means that there is an extra >> step in the process. You prepare the writeup, and then you have to >> enter it into the tool. And mistakes happen at that point. >> >> Yours, >> Joel >> >> On 8/31/13 6:22 AM, Loa Andersson wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I wonder if it would be a good idea to use the same input tool for >>> rtg-dir reviews as we have e.g. for shepherd write-ups. >>> >>> I.e. a template on the IETF web that you can access, read, edit and save >>> from a web-browser if you are the reviewer. Readable by anyone else. >>> >>> Ideally I guess it the review should be directly accessible from the >>> document page in the data-tracker, but at least as a start we could >>> at least keep them off the rtg-dir page. >>> >>> /Loa >>> >>> > From russw@riw.us Sat Aug 31 04:17:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B1E11E813A for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 04:17:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VvlCEUWPQxOC for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 04:16:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from da31.namelessnet.net (da31.namelessnet.net [74.124.205.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D294B11E8136 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 04:16:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpe-098-122-147-095.nc.res.rr.com ([98.122.147.95] helo=RussPC) by da31.namelessnet.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VFjAj-0000rb-Kb; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 04:16:53 -0700 From: "Russ White" To: "'Loa Andersson'" , "'Joel M. Halpern'" References: <5221C3DE.9090206@pi.nu> <5221C709.9000104@joelhalpern.com> <5221C831.2090308@pi.nu> In-Reply-To: <5221C831.2090308@pi.nu> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 07:17:02 -0400 Message-ID: <011601cea63b$9f493760$dddba620$@riw.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQHNCmUQgmBJYRgCSP4tuR8SgEqM7wHZyNx6Ajm3e2GZkcYh8A== Content-Language: en-us X-Antivirus-Scanner: Seems clean. You should still use an Antivirus Scanner Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] The rtg-dir on the net? X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:17:04 -0000 > no there is no extra step - you can do the shepherd write-up in a tool that is > extremely similar to the editor I have for e.g. > Thunderbird. And you don't have to complete it in one go, just save the > temporary version it will not be active until you do the final submit. > > One benefit is that I only have to keep one version, that I can point people to > if I want to ask questions or have feed-back. It doesn't matter much, to me, whether I edit in a separate tool then copy/paste into a web form, or into an email. They're both about the same amount of work. If a web form would make things easier to track, I'm fine with that. :-) Russ From loa@pi.nu Sat Aug 31 05:44:14 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E0511E80FC for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 05:44:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.483 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.156, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oJ5oo1Cg2eMn for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 05:44:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C2111E80F8 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 05:44:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.5.60] (81-229-83-119-no65.business.telia.com [81.229.83.119]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 201F018014F6; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:44:06 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5221E516.5010907@pi.nu> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:44:06 +0200 From: Loa Andersson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org, draft-cotton-rfc4020bis.all@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [RTG-DIR] rtg-dir review of draft-cotton-rfc4020bis-01.txt X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 12:44:14 -0000 All, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-cotton-rfc4020bis-01.txt Reviewer: Loa Andersson Review Date: 2013-08-31 IETF LC End 2013-09-24 Intended Status: Best Current Practice Summary: I have one major and some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: The document is very well written and clear. There is one thing I've thought about marking registries as open for early allocation. Some registries, e.g.: BGP Error Subcodes RFC 4271 Standards Action (Early Allocation available per RFC 4020) Are marked that they are available that they are open for early allocation. While others - that I understand is also open for early allocation e.g.: MPLS Fault OAM Flag Registry RFC 6427 Standards Action are not. I wonder if we wonder if we should request that IANA mark all registries (or part of the registries) that are open for early allocation the same way. Major Issues: Section 3.2 "Expiry" I've recently shepherded a document for which the temporary allocation were made 2007 and was supposed expire 20078; however the allocations are still there. And no harm done. Existing practice is that the early allocation stays until permanently allocated or until the working group chairs to delete them. I think it would be better to document the existing practice. I think it would be enough if the expiry section says: "Once an temporary assignment is made it stays in the registry until the document for which they were made becomes an RFC, or until they are removed by working group chairs or the ADs. IANA may request from working groups chairs if an early allocation should remain in the registry or not." Minor Issues: There has been some comments on the IETF mailing list; SM stumbled over the same words in section 2 as I did '"Specification Required" (where an RFC will be used as the stable reference)' I support Barry Leiba's resolution of that comment. Eric Rosen has also commented on the draft; however I believe that the draft the right approach as it is today. Section 1 - line 3-4: "Many of these code point spaces have registries..." Comment: I find it hard to follow the nomenclature sometimes, registry - name space - code point space. What are the relationships and differences. Nits: - /Loa -- Loa Andersson email: loa@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert loa@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64