Re: Moving right along ...

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

Hi John,

I didn't know that. I thought the "non-standard" draft was going to 
route of informational RFC and the "standard" draft was targeted for the 
regular process...

As for M0/M1, I thought the decision for this transparency was to be 
able to support different available products (wasn't that the original 
intention of things like arbitrary concat and stuff??). And from what I 
(as an individual) understand, there are vendors doing this...

You may know of other vendors that may not do this, and as I remember, 
those that don't use it simply don't set it or ignore it...

Maybe I still don't understand the process (as I mentioned in another 
mail, I'm pretty slow).

Zhi



John Drake wrote:

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 5:47 AM
> To: Kireeti Kompella
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Moving right along ...
> 
> SNIPPED
> 
> 
> 
>>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>
> 
> 
> JD:  Actually, the signalling drafts are on exactly the same technical
> footing as the "non-standard" draft,
> so I think your attempt to draw a distinction between the two is specious at
> best.  Once again, a feature
> or capability is added if the community as a whole decides, through a
> process of rough consensus, that it
> should be added.  No one other than you has indicated an issue with
> switching type and I haven't seen a groundswell
> of support for M0/M1.
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> Zhi
> 
>