Re: Proposed response to the Liaison Statement on ASON Routing

[Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>]

John,
I think we are mixing up at least 3 questions:
1) Is the independence of inter-domain and intra-domain routing protocols
   a valid and accepted requirement?
The proposed liaison response seems to imply yes.

2) Does the current work underway meet this requirement?
Your post seems to imply yes, and you seem to be assuming that Eve's
post implies no, and change is needed to meet the requirement. I think
Eve's words are softer than that: "will meet" to me means that whether or
not the current work underway meets the requirement, because of acceptance
of the requirement, that the end result of the work will ("continue to"
or "now", depending on how you read the current text) meet the requirement.

3) Is it clear from the current text that the requirement is met?
Even Kireeti's response seems to say no ("has not been articulated as
well as it should be ...")

I think that everyone is aligned wrt. questions 1 and 3. Regarding question
2, I think the easiest path to agreement is to choose text for the liaison
reply where it doesn't matter whether you think that meeting the requirement
is a "clarification" or a "change", but the end result will, in any case,
meet the requirement. I think Eve's suggested text does that.
Regards,
Steve

> > "does meet" with "will meet".
> >
> > Couldn't resist ;-)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Eve
> 
> I don't agree with this.  It is actually a pretty drastic change and I don't
> think it is correct.