RE: Draft MPLS minutes

I am tired of this . Do what ever you like.

-Shahram

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:11 AM
>To: Shahram Davari
>Cc: 'curtis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'George Swallow'; mpls@xxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Draft MPLS minutes 
>
>
>
>In message 
><4B6D09F3B826D411A67300D0B706EFDE0115C894@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>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
>