Subject: [mpls] WG last call draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection - closed!

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 17:36:29 +0200

Working Group,

The working group last call draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection has
concluded.

The working group chairs has chosen to close the wglc even if there is
still an ongoing discussion. We believe that there are enough comments
for the authors to improve the document significantly.

Nevertheless we want the discussion, in particular on the technical
issues, to continue.

The authors should make a list of all the comments and how they have
been addressed, and first as folks making the if the resolution is
satisfactory, and once the positions are clear to make the resolution
available on the working group mailing list. When all comments are
resolved a new document should be published.

The comment resolution cycle we start now is to resolve the comments
received ut to now.

We sincerely hope that the discussion will continue and fully understand
that new comments might come in and these comments will be addressed
as part of the normal WG process.

Judging from what we see now it is likely that the changes to this
document is large enough to motivate a 2nd working group last call-

Please note that the working group through discussion when merging the
different *ring-protection" drafts and then when accepting
"draft-weingarten-..." as the working group document decided to create
an applicability statement on how to use linear protection in ring
topologies. That is the scope of this document and we are not going
to change that as part of the wglc process.

I see three kinds of comments

First, comments that simply request abandoning a document that is
reasonably close to completion. These comments are simply out of scope.
Authors just need to classify these comments, but do not need to make
any attempt to resolve them in the current document.

Second, there are a set of comments that seems to be directed towards
this document, but saying that "this is not good enough". For this group
of comments it is necessary that we get the concrete information on
what is behind the comment.

Now within this first and second group of comments there might be
comments that really concerns changes to the document to aligh it
with the intended scope, since abandoning the document now these
comments need to be addressed and resolved.

Third, there is a set of "normal" wglc comments, asking questions,
proposing a rout forward and even giving text. These comments need to
be responded to; accepted, tweaked or rejected.

Please remember that the mailing is is the master and everything needs
to be done in a transparent fashion.

This leaves us in a situation where a small part of the working group
are asking for a different document.

RFC 5654 explains the circumstances under which other topology-specific
protection solutions will be considered. We will use normal working
group process to examine any proposals for new ring-protection
solutions.

/Loa
for the wg chairs

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13