Re: Moving right along ...

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Zhi,

> Incidentally, what is the procedure for the length of time for last
> call?

The docs that have a one week Last Call have been Last Called at least
twice previously.  The process has to terminate at some point.  Also,
the docs were posted some time ago.  You don't have to wait for someone
to suggest that you comment -- please fire at will.

> <z>I think Yangguang mentioned some. If you look back at the email
> archive, I think some folks from Netplane and others also made some
> comments. And yes, these comments were made when the resync stuff was
> first added.

Alan Kullberg made a comment (and a valid one) on Sept 20.  The
resync stuff was sent out July 24.  Perhaps in your opinion, that
counts as "when the resync stuff was first added".

> The comments were simply not addressed adequately (in my
> opinion of course).

I don't know how to put this politely, so let me be blunt.  Using
the fact that others had comments to put roadblocks in the process
is not kosher.  If you said "Hey, there is an issue with ingress
LSRs", I buy that, and I too would like to see this fixed.  I hate
to speak for Alan, but I believe he wants a fix, not to hold up
progress.

I hate too to impute motives to you wrongly.  It's very likely
that you got confused with the loooong discussion on NTIP resync.
However, this is a Last Call process; vague references to "the
comments were simply not addressed adequately" just do not cut it.
State crisply and definitely the issues you feel exist, and let's
resolve them if we can, or get rough consensus if we cannot, and
put this behind us.

As for the rest, let me juxtapose your comments on switching type
and M0/M1; I will say nothing, hoping that the juxtaposition will
speak for itself.

> For example, I've commented on the "switching type" as part of signaling
> for some time, and never really understand why this was added.  Yes,
> there has been some explanations, but I don't think those are reasons
> for adding. It sounds like it is something that "seems" to be
> reasonable. If something can be added because it "seems" reasonable,
> then does that mean if I think there is something that "seems"
> reasonable, the authors would be compelled to add these or who makes the
> decision to add these?



> >       flag 13: M0
> >       flag 14: M1
...
> <z>My understanding is if someone uses this, then it can be included.
> Therefore the reason is that some company uses it. Hope this is reason
> enough!</z>

Kireeti.