Re: GMPLS Issue - Ethernet LSP Enc Type

[Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>]

George,
         See responses below.

At 10:14 AM 12/19/2001, George Newsome wrote:

>Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> > At 09:19 AM 12/19/2001, George Newsome wrote:
> > >Lou Berger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At 10:55 AM 12/18/2001, Ben Mack-Crane wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >The following issue raised 10/29/01 has not been addressed.
> > > >
>........................
> > > >
> > > > The current wording is what was agreed to.
> > > >
> > >
> > >So if I understand this correctly, the wording that you allude to was
> > >agreed in private discusions?
> >
> > To be precise, the wording was agreed to among all the authors.
> >
>I stand corrected - agreed to in private discussions among all the
>authors.

I was clarifying my earlier statement, my apologies if it came off as 
correcting you.

> > >Without public discussion,
> >
> > I think you'd agree that it's impractical to review in detail every change
> > in a draft, prior to it being made, on the ccamp list.  What we have done
> > is to reach agreement first among the co-authors and then to review the
> > changes as part of issuing the new drafts.   The encoding type change was
> > made *9* months ago.  There has been ample opportunity for review and 
> comment.
> >
>Actually I disagree. In other bodies documents are reviewed on a line by
>line basis until all parties indicate agreement.

I'm surprised to see you say this as you must know this is not how things 
work in the IETF.

>........
> >
> > isn't there some quote about pleasing all the people all the time...
> >
>Isn't there also some quote that in science and engineering, volume of
>opinion != correctness?

Again, per my last message:
>again, one person objecting != lack of "rough consensus".
>
>Remember this item has not changed since March.
>
>Unless the WG chair says otherwise, I see this issues as closed.

Lou

>Regards
>
>        George