All good questions, Jerry.
Avri, Loa, and I originally had an ambitious plan to "force" these
requirements on the whole of the Routing Area. This seemed to us to be the
right scale for such an experiment, but I think folks were (probably
reasonably) a bit shy of making such a change on such a large scale.
My next proposal was to bring this forward as 3933 process experiment
limited to the PCE working group. However, various process experts and some
of the IESG warned us off saying that such a process experiment was really
targeted at a larger proving ground and that 3933 was too heavy for what we
had in mind. They suggested that if we were limiting ourselves to just the
PCE working group and if the working group supported the idea, we should
just get on with it.
So that is what this revision of the draft is trying to do.
My hope is that valuable lessons will be learned resulting either in this
idea being refined or abandoned. This should give other working group chairs
(and hopefully the IESG) some helpful input. At the same time, I hope that
the output of the PCE working group will be suitably improved by following
these guidelines.
I know that the Ops ADs are considering a separate effort at the next IETF
that will look at offering guidance to the authors of *all* I-Ds on how they
can give suitable considerations to Manageability, and I am sure that we
will be trying to keep in synch.
Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JP Vasseur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Pce] WG Feed-back
requiredondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt
Because, this ID does have some implication on (current and future)
PCE WG IDs, I'd welcome feed-back on adopting this ID as a WG
document.
Question on the ultimate intent of this draft
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requireme
nts-02.txt:
Is the goal to only apply the requirements to the PCE WG drafts or to
the IETF as a whole? It appears the intent is to restrict to the PCE WG
and hope that other WGs apply in the future. If we adopt this process
just for the PCE WG, what becomes of the revised process after the PCE
WG completes its work and is disbanded?
Process experiments are run according to RFC 3933
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3933.txt?number=3933, and AFAIK are intended
to be applied to IETF-wide processes.
Thanks,
Jerry
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
