---------- Forwarded message ----------
reminder - we need these summaries by next Friday - otherwise we will
assume that we do not need to worry about the ID
also - you need to be specific in where you think the ID fits - just saying
"fits in MPLS" is not enough - say where in the MPLS work
Scott & Bert
---------------------------------------------
All, but specifically I-D Authors/Editors
Over the last several months, we have seen A LOT of I-Ds submitted/posted
which appear to be targeted for one or more WGs in the new sub-IP area.
(ccamp, gsmp, ipo, iporpr, tewg, mpls and ppvpn) These are mostly
individual I-Ds, that is those that do not start with
draft-ietf-<someWgName>
but this mesage referrs to ALL I-Ds related to the Sub IP WGs.
In fact we believe we have some 200-300 of such documents.
It is sort of impossible to try and read them all and decide in which WG
(if any) they might fit. So in order to help us (WG chairs and ADs) to
work our way through all these documents, we want the AUTHORS/EDITORS of
such existing documents to do the following:
- Before May 18th, pls send ONE SINGLE email per I-D to the email alias
idsummary@subip.ietf.org
That email should be formatted and contain content as
explained below.
Pls DO NOT send these emails to any WG mailing list.
The idsummary mailing list will be archived publically at
ftp://subip.ietf.org/pub/lists/idsummary*
Since these are non-WG documents (yet) any comments/discussion
can/should take place at:
subip-area@subip.ietf.org
But initially the idea is to just collect the data.
- When doing a revision of these documents or writing a new I-D,
please pls add a section at the beginning of your document that contains
the same information we are asking for here so that readers of your
document can also see it.
All these emails will be archived and the WG chairs, ADs, Technical
Advisors
and Directorate will review them and report back (target is end of May)
what we want to do with each of the documents.
If we do not receive a note about an I-D we will assume that the I-D
authors/editors do not intend to publish it as a RFC.
Further, if you assume this pictorial overview of the work we are doing
in the sub-IP area, then pls indicate where in the picture your document
fits.
--- pictorial overview of work in the sup-IP area --------------
The Working Groups at the top are those that will use the
Common Control and Measurement Protocols that we're
defining in the CCAMP WG.
Applications +-------+ +-------+ (new) Hour glass
that use CCAMP: \ | TE-WG | | PPVPN | ... /
\ +-------+ +-------+ /
\ +----------------------+ /
\ | CCAMP | /
\ |-----------+----------| /
/ | C | M --|------ IGP LSA ext
/ | control | measure | \
/ +----------------------+ \
Technologies to / +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ \
measure/control:/ |MPLS| |OPT | |RPR | |ATM | | FR |...\
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
The technologies at the bottom allow us to create paths and so those
are the ones we want to measure and control via the Common Control
and Measurement Protocols coming out of CCAMP. One of those
technologies (MPLS) is defined by IETF, others are (have been) defined
in other standards organisations. However, we want to focus mainly on
the use of such technologies for IP.
So for example the IPO and IPORPR WGs are assumed to be active at
the bottom because we want to focus on the IP use of such technologies.
Bert and Scott
--------------------
The ONE SINGLE email per I-D should be as follows:
- Subject: <targetWgName> <nameOfID>
the targetWgName is the WG that you as authors/editors
think that this document should live in. If you have no specific
WG as the target WG, then use subIP as the name.
the nameOfID is the filename of the draft, e.g. draft-xxx-yyy-zzz-00.txt
- In the body of the email must have the following sections with these
section titles:
NAME OF I-D:
Write it down as a URL so we can click on it to see it. e.g.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xxx-yyy-zzz-00.txt
SUMMARY
This should contain a summary of the content of the document
Potentially it can be the abstract. But pls make sure that it helps
the reader undestand what the document is all about.
PLEASE TRY TO KEEP IT DOWN TO TWO PARAGRAPHS
RELATED DOCUMENTS
A list of URLs for other I-Ds (or non-IETF documents) that you think
relate,
compete, complement or overlap with your document. "none" if none
WHERE DOES IT FIT IN THE PICTURE OF THE SUB-IP WORK
Applications +-------+ +-------+ (new) Hour glass
that use CCAMP: \ | TE-WG | | PPVPN | ... /
\ +-------+ +-------+ /
\ +----------------------+ /
\ | CCAMP | /
\ |-----------+----------| /
/ | C | M --|------ IGP LSA ext
/ | control | measure | \
/ +----------------------+ \
Technologies to / +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ \
measure/control:/ |MPLS| |OPT | |RPR | |ATM | | FR |...\
+----+ +----+ +----+ +----+ +----+
WHY IS IT TARGETED AT THIS WG
You must explain how the ID addresses a workitem in the current WG
charter as listed on the WG charter page on the IETF web site. If
it addresses only part of a work item, then please explain if there
are other documents that could be merged with this one to become one
document to address the complete work item.
JUSTIFICATION
Why do you think it is justified for the WG to consider this document.
In the case that you cannot explain how this document addresses
a specific WG charter work item, then explain and justify why the
WG should even consider this work and what the description of
a possible new work item would be for the WG. Suggest possible
milestones for that work item.
Please realize, that new work items need wide support within a
WG, but also they need agreement from the WG chairs and ADs,
and even when they get that, the whole IESG and IAB must review and
approve new-work items before they get added to a WG charter.
Please understand that we already have a lot of work in our WG
charters, and that we would rather see that finished (or at least
be well undeway) before we undertake any new work items.