Thanks Adrian, very helpful. Yes, I support adopting this ID as a WG document and the need for a manageability section in WG drafts.
Regards, Jerry -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:39 PM To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; JP Vasseur; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Dan ((Dan)) Romascanu Subject: Re: [Pce] WG Feed-back requiredondraft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements-02.txt 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
