RE: [T1X1.5] RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Eve,

Okay, for the sake of discussion, we'll assume that the last two thirds of
the e-mail
don't exist and focus on the first third:

"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".

The way I read this, it says to me that the people involved in working on
the
draft are unqualifed to be working on it and that none of the work that they
have
done over the past year is of any value, so my earlier comments still
obtain.

Furthermore, your comments about slippery slope disturb me because they
follow
a pattern of filibustering and dissemination of FUD which seems to be aimed
at
preventing forward progress.

Thanks,

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Eve Varma [mailto:evarma@lucent.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 10:30 AM
To: John Drake
Cc: 'Zhi-Wei Lin'; Mannie, Eric; 'Guo-Qiang Wang'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; q11/15; t1x1.5
Subject: Re: [T1X1.5] RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the
concatenation


Hi all,

I don't think Zhi had any intent to denigrate other individuals whose
names were on the draft (in fact, several have expressed similar
concerns).  I think the key point was in the earlier part of the
message; as expressed in an earlier message from Juergen Heiles, there's
considerable concern that we're descending a slippery slope that could
ultimately have negative impacts.

                       Cheers,
                            Eve

John Drake wrote:
> 
> 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
> >