Re: AD-review comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control

[Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>]

Greg,

  Regarding a consensus against having this go forward, I'll have to defer
  to the WG chairs. So far I haven't been informed about such thing, on the
  contrary--the fact that the doc has been submitted to me implies there
  should be consensus on it.

-- 
Alex
http://www.psg.com/~zinin/

Wednesday, March 10, 2004, 7:36:19 PM, Greg Bernstein wrote:
> Sounds good Alex. But please advise us if there seems to be a consensus
> against having this go forward.  Eric, Vishal and myself have published
> papers in several IEEE magazines on these topics (though not all this
> info in any one place and definitely not at this level of detail due to
> page count limitations). 

> On the other hand the document is a very nice reference/companion for
> anyone trying to understand this stuff (kind of a prerequisite to making
> it work or using it) and hence very convenient to have it archived at
> the IETF.  But, I still think it could hurt my book sales so on second
> thought.... ;-)

> Greg B.

> Dr. Greg M. Bernstein
> Grotto Networking


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:38 PM
> To: Vishal Sharma
> Cc: Adrian Farrel; Greg Bernstein; Eric Mannie; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Bert
> Wijnen
> Subject: Re: AD-review comments on draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control

> Vishal,

>   To clarify the process, here's the list of stages a document usually
> goes
>   through:

>   1. WG discussion
>   2. WG Last Call
>   3. AD review (may include directorate       <-- You are here now
>      and expert reviews)
>   4. IETF LC (generally not needed for INFO)
>   5. IESG review
>   6. RFC Editor

>   I received the doc back in Sep 2003 and asked one of the Routing Area
>   directorate members for an expert review, which resulted in a long
> list of
>   comments. We had a long (and admittedly slow) discussion between the
> reviewer,
>   me, and the WG chairs in an attempt to distill it to a set of most
> significant
>   technical comments and editorial suggestions, which is what I brought
> back for
>   consideration by the WG.

>   On a related note: please do not assume that work is done once a
> document has
>   passed the WG LC. It is normal to receive comments from the ADs and
> IESG.

>   Regards.