The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] Draft MPLS minutes
I am tired of this . Do what ever you like. -Shahram >-----Original Message----- >From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@fictitious.org] >Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:11 AM >To: Shahram Davari >Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; 'George Swallow'; mpls@UU.NET >Subject: Re: Draft MPLS minutes > > > >In message ><4B6D09F3B826D411A67300D0B706EFDE0115C894@nt-exch-yow.pmc-sierra.bc. >ca>, Shahram Davari writes: >> >I remember that earlier discussion very well and your >objection to the >> >words "simple and efficient" included the argument that these words >> >added nothing to the draft. I suggested that it could be removed on >> >the grounds that it added nothing but I did not agree that it the >> >protocol could not be described as "simple and efficient". >> >> I am sure that is true specially after the ULTRA simple ECMP handling >> text that you suggested to be added to the draft ! >> >> >I am also >> >not an author of this draft. Apparently the authors did not agree >> >since the words "simple and efficient" are still in the -02 draft. >> >> You are right, I thought it was agreed on the list that this >text be removed. >> Also please note that any change to any WG draft MUST be >done based on WG >> consensus. So I am not sure that the authors personal >opinion should override >> WG consensus. > >I suggested the change to appease one vocal complainer and said so >when I suggested it. My wording was: > >> I'm not suggesting comments should be ignored. For example: >> >> This document describes a mechanism that can be used to >detect data >> plane failures in MPLS LSPs. The mechanisms described here are >> intended to detect forwarding faults in an MPLS LSP which prevent >> traffic from being delivered to its intended destination and >> isolate the fault to the LSR at which traffic stops flowing. No >> attempt is made to determine that cause of the fault or diagnose >> problems any further. Enumeration of all possible fault types is >> outside the scope of this document. >> >> Removing "simple and efficient" in the first sentence >addresses a long >> message voicing an objection. >> >> The last two sentences address some diatribe on this list about >> lsp-ping != Y.1711 by agreeing that lsp-ping != Y.1711. Its a >> feature. >> >> I think a lot of comment resulted from a poor understanding of how >> traceroute mode was supposed to work. I responded earlier by saying >> that "like IP tracroute" was sufficient for me but needed to >be in the >> document. So we'll put it there. >> >> There was a lot of noise on this list. If there were useful >> comments that were missed they can be repeated. > >No one else spoke in favor of the change. I was not in favor of the >change but was tired of hearing your complaining. That leaves you >alone and the apparent consensus is to keep that wording as is. > >I suggest that both you and I now stop and listen for consensus on the >list. > >> >Since the second sentence is not true it should either be >omited from >> >the minutes or a note added that the statement though made was not >> >true. The authors neither agreed that the protocol is not >simple and >> >efficient nor did they remove the text. >> >> First of all this is a minute of what happened in the meeting, not an >> analysis or debate document. You are free to comment on the list, but >> I don't think changing the minutes of what actually was said >is the right >> thing to do. However, if you like to introduce such >precedence, then I have >> a bunch of comments against many comments raised during the >meeting that >> I would like to be added to the minutes. > >Maybe you don't care if your statement is true. I'll leave it to the >minute takers/keeper as to whether to footnote the statement. I don't >think it matters either way. > >> -Shahram > >Curtis > |
|