Re: Final updates to draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control-03.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Vishal,

> The authors have been working on this for a rather very long time, and
> do have other committments. At this time, we can commit to making
> the updates by the DC IETF.

I'm sure we all appreciate the considerable effort that all three authors have put into
this working group draft over the years. No one is making any criticism of, or "taking the
draft away" from, the current authors.

At the same time, it is my responsibility to get the draft through to completion, and it
would be reasonable to get it through the IESG before the Washington IETF. As we all know
the draft has suffered from being dropped by the chairs a couple of times in the past, but
the last set of comments were made on July 25th. The remaining work is relatively small,
and I have a volunteer to do the work in short order.

I believe this is a beneift to you because:
- the work gets done
- you get consulted and continue to have a say in the text
- you don't have to commit to as much effort as making the changes yourself.

It is clearly of benefit to the working group because we will get the draft out of the way
and off our charter before the next IETF.

So, unless the WG has strong objections, I will hand this over to another editor this week
and we can all move on.

> BTW, I have looked at the feedback you sent, and some of the
> comments (such as VC termination on different line cards) are
> I believe not feasible, and, therefore, not applicable. We will look at
> them in more detail, and make modifications as needed.

The topology and bandwidth work fine. If there are other issues, they are actually the
same issues as with PSC and you are not comparing like with like. Inverse muxing into two
channels on the same end-to-end path is not the same as inverse muxing onto two channels
on separate paths. The latter may be hard/impossible to do, because of the need to
synchronize between hardware components and between paths of different lengths, but that
is precisely my point.

Thanks,
Adrian