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

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

Adrian,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 11:20 PM
> To: v.sharma@ieee.org
> Cc: Kireeti Kompella; Greg Bernstein; Eric Mannie; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
> ewgray@GraIyMage.com
> Subject: Re: Final updates to draft-ietf-ccamp-sdhsonet-control-03.txt
> 
> 
> Hi Vishal,
> 
> Apologies for the delay in replying.
> 
> I certainly don't want to drag this out into a long debate one 
> way or the other. We run
> the risk of spending more cycles on this than we would have done 
> simply to make the
> changes.

Agreed. Let's proceed to get the job done!
Since it is Eric Gray who has volunteered to make the edits,
I'm happy to let him do that.

-Vishal

> > 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?
> 
> There are several drafts that are blocking progress of very many 
> items on the RFC Ed's
> queue. This is a mess that has gone on too long, and the chairs 
> bear a fair amount of
> responsibility for being lax in chasing up various people and actions.
> 
> Various people (including editors, and chairs) are now getting 
> put under pressure to
> complete their jobs very quickly or to stand aside.
> 
> The status of the blocking drafts is as follows:
> 
> - P&R functional spec:
>    marked up after AD review
>    with Kireeti to confirm changes are OK
>    response planned this week
>    then submit and pass to IESG
> - P&R terminology
>    ditto
> - G.709
>    updates after AD review done
>    reviewed for changes (just done by me)
>    re-publication imminent
>    the pass to IESG
> - SDH/SONET control
>    AD comments made on 4th March
>    re-published 15th July
>    I reviewed 25th July
> - Overlay draft
>    WG last call completed 23rd March
>    No response from authors so I made changes 26th April
>    AD comments 13th July
>    No response from authors despite several pings
> - LMP MIB
>   Just gone into IETF last call
> 
> > 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.
> 
> "Dire" would be an exageration, but there are now drafts from 
> several WGs blocked by the
> list above.
> 
> > Otherwise, the WG will have the revised document from us shortly
> > anyway.
> 
> Frankly, I cannot see why you object to someone else making these 
> editorial updates. Since
> I have heard no objection from anyone else in the WG (nor from 
> the other two authors), we
> will take Eric Gray up on his kind offer to make the last changes 
> and submit a revised
> version of the draft.
> 
> Eric will make the necessary edits and work with the all of the 
> authors to submit a new
> draft really soon.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>