The MPLS WG Archive

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

Eric,

I am not talking about any bad motives. It might have been a combination of unwanted incidents.

What I wanted to point out is that I think the reason that there is a different deadline for -00 draft is that people be informed and have time to read a brand new draft, which off course is different than reading an update to a previous draft.

There was no announcement on MPLS list about -03 draft, and it was not even shown on the 3 agendas announced, which the last one was just a day before the meeting, and this mistake was not corrected by the authors either.

Based on these observations I think another consensus vote is needed on the list to decide whether this should become  WG document or not.

-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Gray [mailto:eric.gray@sandburst.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:37 PM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; 'mpls@UU.net'
> Subject: Re: MPLS ping draft-03
> 
> 
> Shahram,
> 
>     This is an interesting notion and has some validity if 
> there is any
> intent to deceive or mislead in implying that rev N is 
> historically and
> traceably related in some way to rev N-1.  Irresepective of the actual
> extent of the changes in this case, I doubt that any such 
> intention can
> accurately be assigned to the people working on this effort.
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> >I think there is a good reason that IETF has set different 
> deadlines for version 00 and higher versions. When a draft 
> has had 100% change from its previous version, then it should 
> be submitted as another -00 version before the deadline of 
> the -00 version submission.
> >
> >I suggest that in future in order to reduce confusion, if 
> you have another 100% change, please rename your draft.  
> >
> >-Shahram
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> >>Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:09 PM
> >>To: Shahram Davari
> >>Cc: 'mpls@UU.net'
> >>Subject: Re: MPLS ping draft-03
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi Shahram,
> >>
> >>On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Shahram Davari wrote:
> >>
> >>>I would like to point out a few facts that I think you 
> >>>
> >>should consider
> >>
> >>>when deciding about the faith of this draft.
> >>>
> >>>1) Version-03 is basically a Brand New draft and has almost 
> >>>
> >>nothing in
> >>
> >>>common with version-02.
> >>>
> >>Are you really questioning the "faith of the draft" (or the good
> >>faith of the authors) because the draft changed?  Pretty amazing!
> >>
> >>>Therefore I recommend that you read this draft carefully.
> >>>
> >>Good idea!  If one actually looked at the changes, one could make
> >>*technical* comments instead of argumentum ad draftinem.
> >>
> >>For those who are interested, the new version addresses 
> three issues:
> >>a) data plane failure detection for *any* LSP;
> >>b) fault isolation for *any* LSP;
> >>c) reliable return paths.
> >>
> >>The -02 version only addressed (a) and (c), and only for RSVP LSPs.
> >>
> >>Kireeti.
> >>
> >>PS: Expect the draft to change further ("those rat finks did it
> >>    again!") :-)
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
>