RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

I find this message to be very puzzling.  As far as I know, the authors as a
group are extremely conversant with the
subject matter in the draft and the draft represents their best current
thinking.  You seem to be trying disparage them because you don't agree with
their solution, and I think that that is extremely unprofessional. 

The authors spent a long time working out the details of what is presented
in the draft, which you airily dismiss with:

"As to how many companies and how many people's names are on the
contribution. Let's be intelligent adults here. As someone once asked
me, "if you see a million flies eating feces, would you also eat?"
(sorry people! it is disgusting but I had to give an extreme analogy).
Sometimes the majority may not be correct. I am not saying I am correct
either. It all depends on the background knowledge base and the
underlying motive of the people..."

"As to how many processes followed, how many meetings held, how many
conferences given, how many emails exchanged...an idea doesn't get
better with repetition. As someone once said at some standards meeting
"if an idea stinks, it doesn't matter how many times some idea is
presented, it still stinks that many times". So the number of times is
not a reason for making a decision."

If you're not happy with the draft, you are perfectly free to remove your
name from it, but don't denigrate the other
authors.

John 

 



-----Original Message-----
From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 8:38 PM
To: Mannie, Eric
Cc: 'Guo-Qiang Wang'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; q11/15; t1x1.5
Subject: Re: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation



Hi,

I think your questions cannot be answered either way. Whether features
are needed for one or two vendors is up to each vendor to decide what
they want. 

As for how many vendor is needed for a standard. Again this question
doesn't really apply. We as engineers and the development community has
to study a problem to make sure that it will not unduly impact existing
networks, that what we are looking at should be sound and technically
superior and that it will help provide added value to networks. As these
transport capabilities will likely require people of transport expertise
to study first, that's what we should do. Let's not get too "trigger
happy" and include something "just because it's there", and then decide
to remove when "standards say no". That like "putting the cart in front
of the horse".

As to how many companies and how many people's names are on the
contribution. Let's be intelligent adults here. As someone once asked
me, "if you see a million flies eating feces, would you also eat?"
(sorry people! it is disgusting but I had to give an extreme analogy).
Sometimes the majority may not be correct. I am not saying I am correct
either. It all depends on the background knowledge base and the
underlying motive of the people...

As to how many processes followed, how many meetings held, how many
conferences given, how many emails exchanged...an idea doesn't get
better with repetition. As someone once said at some standards meeting
"if an idea stinks, it doesn't matter how many times some idea is
presented, it still stinks that many times". So the number of times is
not a reason for making a decision. 

Let's be technical, let the experts in the right group decide, and we
should not jump the gun. Let's be adults and let's help make the telecom
industry and the standards process a respectable place...




"Mannie, Eric" wrote:

> I don't work for a vendor :-) Who told you that some features are needed
> only for one or two vendors ? How do you quantify the number of vendors
that
> are needed to have a standard ? We work on a consensus based and this
draft
> has 17 companies on it with 30 people. Usually it is much much less at the
> IETF, you only have a small number of co-authors. I already gave a summary
> of the process that we followed, all the meetings that we hold, all the
> conference call that we hold, all the e-mails that we exchanged, etc.
> 
> You described one model in your e-mail, that's a valid model but this is
not
> THE (only) model. There are plenty of other models that can be fulfilled
> with GMPLS.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Eric
>