Re: Moving right along ...

[Zhi-Wei Lin <zwlin@lucent.com>]

Hi Kireeti,


> 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>yes, of course. I've tried to work on some of the issues off-line 
with the authors prior to the last call process. But I figured since 
this is the last call, I need to send something to the mail list...</z>


> 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".
> 


<z>I apologize because I can't look back at all the emails (I'm at the 
ITU meeting and is connecting over a phone line). I will give you more 
details on this when I get back.

Essentially I've had email exchanges with Ping Pan on this issue for a 
while and asked some questions that has still not been answered. I will 
dig those out and forward to this group probably the week of Oct. 29.</z>


> 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.
> 


<z>I don't think my position was to put up roadblocks. What I am doing 
is trying to resolve issues that are still pending. If you equate the 
two, then that's your call.</z>


> 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.
> 


<z>The switching type is in a "standard" document, while the M0/M1 is in 
the "non-standard" document. I will let that speak for itself as well. 
And by the way, when you made this comment are making it as a chair or 
as a contributor?</z>


Zhi