Requirements for Internet Traffic Engineering Measurement
draft-ietf-tewg-measure-07

TEWG decided to not deliver on this document.
Not enough interest and the revisions have not resulted in a document that has (enough) support
of the WG. See minutes of IETF58 and follow-up
email to tewg list:

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Boyle [mailto:jboyle@pdnets.com]
Sent: zaterdag 22 november 2003 6:31
To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
Subject: IETF 58 TEWG followup



These items are mentioned in the minutes, and deserve list followup.

Inter-AS will be resubmitted w/ changes, then it is felt that it is ready
for the WG last call. CCAMP chairs will notify their group that this is
coming, they are intersted in trying to get this and Inter-area around the
same time.

I'm respinning interarea req's draft, seeking provider input and feedback,
that will be turned around in the next 4 weeks. 

The measurement draft was discussed on the list.  I know that there are a
few close to this draft that would like to see it proceed, but there does
not appear to be the general support for that, so we will not deliver on
that as a WG.

Also - as soon as inter-AS and inter-area progress, TEWG will close out.

We've accomplished a lot, but when your plate is nearly clean, some times
its best not to fill it back up.  If there's truly the need, it would
likely be best to use a BOF to get the effort properly focussed and
supported.

Thanks!

Jim

Ad review comments posted to WG list on April 25th (see below). After that some more discussion on the list. The WG will do drastic edits to the document to try and extract (list) a CRISP set of TEM requirements.

Responsible: Authors and WG

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: vrijdag 25 april 2003 3:13
To: Tewg (E-mail)
Subject: AD review of: draft-ietf-tewg-measure-05.txt


My summary:

- a lot of text... but not very focused and to the point (or at least
  I have trouble seeing the main points)
- not a "framework", rather an exploration of TE measurement related topics
  (more like  a summary-introduction)
- I am not an operator, but I think if I were one, then
  - if we were already doing TE measurement stuff (most likely) then
    reading it seems a waste of time
  - if we were not yet doing any of it... then I wonder if this would
    be helpfull at all.
- W.r.t. the TEM WG work item, it says:
    The tewg interacts with the common control and measurement plane
    working group to abstract and define those parameters, measurements,
    and controls that traffic engineering needs in order to engineer
    the network.
  So I would expect a CRISP set of "requirements for additional measurements,
  configurable/negotiable parameters/controls" ... but not the extensive
  exploration and text that I now see. Why do people (or the WG) think
  that this document meets the WG deliverable for TEM ??
- W.r.t. review:
  - 4 people from ATT support it. Waisum is one of them and is main editor.
    Others (Nick Duffield, Bob Cole) have some of their material listed in
    the doc.
  - 3 EDU users commented, 2 said they found it a good doc
    3rd one asked a few questions
  - Raymond Zhang is positive. He is from info.net ??? is that an operator?
  - Richard Tibbs gave a thumbs up, he is from oakcitusolutions.com.
    What role/function does he play/have? Operator, code/tool-developer?
  - One hotmail user (Spyrokontigiogis) gave a thumbs up. Not that
    he/she added any comment. Do we know him/her?
    What role/function does he/she play/have? Operator, code/tool-developer?
  - Dimitri Papadimitrou (Alcatel) asked a question/suggested some text.
    I did not see if he likes the doc or not
  - Blain Christian (uunet, so maybe a real operator?) withdrew as co-editor
    That does not sound good (in my view)
- So where are the real operators that support this?

My thought is that I can do two things:

- send back to WG and say that this is "not good enough" and that I do not
  feel comforatable to present it to IESG for approval.
  It does NOT meet (in my eyes) the WG deliverable for TEM.
- send it to IESG with my recommendation to NOT approve for same reasons.

So let me try the first option first and ask the WG what they have to say
to my review.

Bert