Re: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF

[Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>]

Kireeti,
Wasn't there a default resolution indicated in your email of Feb 25?
Kireeti Kompella wrote:
(snip)
> If there isn't consensus in either direction, we'll go with one
> encoding -- that's the right thing to do in principle.
> 
> Kireeti.
The way I read this, it says "If we can't agree to something
different, we will do (1)". Did I misunderstand the earlier email?
Regards,
Steve

Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Here's what we got for each option:
> 
> 1) Trowbridge, Brungard, Vainshtein, Eve Varma, Natale, Juergen, Ash,
>    Aboul-Magd, Mack-Crane, Sadler, Sankaranarayanan, Yangguang,
>    Zhi-Wei Lin, Silman Lionel, Vissers, Hai Vodinh, Monica Lazer,
>    Aguirre-Torre, Kalmanek, Yates, Molinari, Caviglia, Guangzhi Li,
>    Dongmei, John Strand.
> -> 25
> 
> 2) Papadimitiriou, Mannie, Bala, Drake, Zhensheng, Kakutam, Saha,
>    Ayan Banerjee, Sudheer, Cheng, Dan Guo, TOMOHIRO OTANI, Grammel,
>    van_den_bosch, Rousseau, Dieter Beller, Gert Van Hoey, Yakov Rekhter,
>    Jonathan Lang, Lou Berger (4/2), Jim Jones, Luc Ceuppens, Hug Werner,
>    Emmanuel.Desmet.
> -> 23.5
> 
> 3) John Fee, Curtis Brownmiller.
> 
> 4) Greg, Sharma, Meehan, Lou Berger.
> 
> There were some ambiguous "votes": Lou Berger was counted in 2, as
> there wasn't much support for 4.  Meehan seemed to say that 1 was
> not acceptable in its current form, but he mentioned both 4 and 1.
> 
> If we missed your "vote", or misinterpreted it, please let us know.
> 
> Some of you have noticed that "voting" went on past the deadline.
> I haven't broken out results by dates.  The deadline was only to
> give Eric time to produce a document that matched the consensus;
> however, as there wasn't any clear consensus, Eric produced an
> interim document just so that there is a basis for discussion.
> 
> Others noticed that many folks from the same company voted the
> same way.  I didn't :-)  The IETF does not recognize companies
> when it comes to consensus decisions -- it's just individuals.
> 
> THE OUTCOME IS: no consensus.  Note that these are *not* votes.
> In a face-to-face meeting, consensus would mean that the people in
> favor of some option raised their hands, and it was obvious without
> actually counting that those were by far the biggest group.
> 
> So, on to Plan B.  A closed group, including some of the authors,
> the chairs and the ADs will meet at the IETF, and see if we can
> craft a document that those present will sign off on.  If so, that
> version will be published, and there will be a 2 week Last Call
> period after the IETF so that everyone in the CCAMP community can
> comment on the result.  Note that this Last Call will be limited
> to the SONET/SDH issue: i.e., the changes between the current
> version of the document and the new version that we (hopefully)
> will have after the IETF.
> 
> Ron and Kireeti.