Re: Moving right along ...

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Zhi,

> -- cr-ldp is in version 4, which means that the revisions done to 
> rsvp-te05 has not been reflected there...how do we resolve this 
> inconsistency?

Would bumping the version number of the cr ldp draft work for you? :-)

I see that Don has posted a new version -- thanks, Don.

> -- rsvp-te-05 and signaling-06 has incorporated the restart capability 
> as proposed by Ping Pan. However, that work was never looked at 
> carefully and some issues remain on how this covers all the different 
> cases.

"that work was never looked at carefully" is a strong statement.
The work *was* looked at carefully, at least by some folks.  There
may well be corner cases that have been missed; it would be an
excellent idea to point those out.

> Is it correct to simply include content of individual drafts into 
> a WG draft that is in last call without adequate data on whether it 
> handles all the different cases?

Clearly not.  Are you suggesting that that was what was done?

It is a judgment call to include significant new material into a
document in last call.  In this instance, handling restart of the
control plane is of sufficient importance to warrant inclusion.
That said, this inclusion happened some time ago (late July);
your comment would have been more timely then.

In any case, it would be more helpful if you pointed out
scenarios that are missing, and even better if you had concrete
suggestions to fix things.

> -- signaling-06 also includes several new items in there that doesn't 
> seem to be added because of a identified need (do a diff to find the 
> differences). Why were they added to the document (I'm not questioning 
> them, just asking for clarifying explanation)?

Good question, but rather open-ended.  Can you mention a few
specific items?  At that point, Lou et al could mail the list
with answers.

> -- in signaling-06, since we've decided that this set of I-Ds are to be 
> consistent with the standards for the respective technologies, then 
> "Digital Wrapper, G.709" should be changed to "ODUk, G.709" or something 
> that is used in G.709 or G.872 to describe the types of the signals...

I like being consistent with G.709/872.  Eric, Dimitri, others:
comments on terminology?

> -- There are still some technical questions remaining on some content of 
> the sonet-sdh-02 that are still been discussed in a private list (my 
> understanding). Shouldn't these be resolved first before it goes for 
> last call?

Can you take them up with the authors?

As a general comment, the operative phrase at the IETF is
"rough consensus".  It would be ideal to have all comments
addressed, and all issues resolved, but there is a point at
which we have to declare that the remaining issues/comments
are not significant enough to halt progress.

> -- in sonet-sdh-extension-00, we would like to add two new flags into 
> the list of flags for transparency (I have spoken to Eric already, and 
> I'm waiting to have these added in the next version):
>       flag 13: M0
>       flag 14: M1

I don't believe that that should be an issue; however, can you offer
reasons for their inclusion, just so we know?

> -- I believe g709-00 is currently undergoing some changes to align with 
> standards positions and to reflect the work on OTN TDM that is been 
> discussed in ITU study group 15 meeting this week and next week.

Excellent!

Kireeti.