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

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Adrian,

Thanks for the note.

While we certainly appreciate the efforts to move the draft and
are keen to do so ourselves to move the WG work forward,
we do not think there is a need to burden someone else with
making the very last set of changes to the document at this
late stage.

We have promised to get the work done within the next 4 odd 
weeks, which is pretty short order. 

It is great that there is someone willing to make the changes 
(who is it?), but it is
a *greater workload* for us to coordinate the changes with someone
else, rather than making them ourselves!
(We have, after all,
been editing the draft for over 2 years (the document is much older), and 
are certainly better equipped to make these changes.)

As such, we would like for us to make the changes, and do not
agree with the idea of hading the draft over to someone else, at 
this stage.

BTW, which CCAMP drafts are in the RFC etc. queue, whose progress
depends _solely_ upon the progress of this draft? Even if there
are, are they likely to clear the queue, before DC?

If the need of the WG is so extremely dire for the progress of
this draft, let us know. We will do our best to make time for it.

Otherwise, the WG will have the revised document from us shortly
anyway.

-Vishal



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 8:50 PM
> To: v.sharma@ieee.org; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; Greg Bernstein; Eric Mannie
> Subject: Re: Final updates to draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control-03.txt
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>