guys - does EVERYONE need to see this - I've removed some of the list aliases
to bcc - please be careful when you REPLY all
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of David Allan I
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 11:24 PM
To: erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it; loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu; Rui
Costa
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF-Announce
Subject: RE: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
HI Erminio:
The comments that were raised during the day long discussion with the editors
at the SG15 plenary resulted in those comments appearing in the liasion IMO in
an actionable form and resulted in a constructive outcome. I enjoyed that level
of cooperation.
The comments that were punted over the wall with no discussion (depsite
requests to allocate meeting time to do so) in some cases were sufficiently
vague as to have no constructive value or not have a recognizable issue to be
addressed.
A request to have the commenters identified in the liaison so that comments
that were unclear could be followed up upon by the editors was refused.
Apparently that is not done and I would go so far as to suggest that blanket of
anonymity diminished the quality of the liaison. The result of this process
was that the only recourse to go "what does this mean?" was a complete liaison
cycle. For some comments, stomaching a multi-month delay to clarify what the
actual issue was that resulted in a comment like "describe the start-up
procedure" was not reasonable, especially given SG15s continual complaint on
how slow the IETF was. Such comments had to be weighed against the nature of
comments from the larger reviewing community that seemed to have no issue with
the completeness of the document content and perhaps had actually read it and
the supporting documents.
I'll call out an example: a comment that appeared more than once in the liaison
was "clarify the raising/clearing of defects as well as any consequent actions"
which I can only interpret as section 3.7 of the document not having been read.
E.g. the TOC is:
3.7.1. Session initiation and Modification 13
3.7.2. Defect entry criteria 13
3.7.3. Defect entry consequent action 14
3.7.4. Defect exit criteria 15
3.7.5. State machines 15
...and if there was a deficiency in the descriptions it was not identified, and
we're not mind readers.
So that is both the history and why some comments were rejected. If you can
suggest a constructive way to proceed that is not simply a waste of everyone's
time, I'll listen..
Cheers
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it
[mailto:erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 1:28 PM
To: David Allan I; loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu; Rui Costa
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF-Announce
Subject: R: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
Do you mean that ITU-T comments were discussed and resolution agreed during the
ITU-T meeting?
If this is the case, why the LS just provides the comments and not the agreed
resolution?
Why some ITU-T comments have been then rejected?
----Messaggio originale----
Da: david(_dot_)i(_dot_)allan(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
Data: 6-lug-2011 19.35
A:
"erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it"<erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it>,
"loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu"
<loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu>, "Rui Costa"<RCosta(_at_)ptinovacao(_dot_)pt>
Cc: "mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"IETF-
Announce"<ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call:
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
Hi Erminio:
Two of the three document editors were present at SG15 plenary in
February
where the comments originated. The revised meeting schedule resulted in a day
spent going through the document with the editors. IMO there were lots of
discussion and legitimate issues with the document identified and corrected so
it was a useful session. The liaison of same was in many ways *after the fact*.
Cheers
Dave
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf