RE: Evaluation: <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-05.txt>

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Ted,

My concern was that we have some concrete comments and I am asking
them to do a new rev before the end of this week, so we can try to
clear the DISCUSSes we have.

If I had some text that would explain to them the major issue you see,
then maybe they can do a few additional things:
- explain to us why they did what they did, could be helpfull
  during our discussion at the retreat
- possibly add some explanatory text to the document as well, 
  so that others who look at it understand things better.

If it is too much to produce a coherent message that explains the
issue, , then we can try to do so after the retreat.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Hardie [mailto:hardie@qualcomm.com]
> Sent: maandag 21 april 2003 18:47
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Evaluation: <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-05.txt>
> 
> 
> Hi Bert,
> 	I thought we agreed to talk about this at the retreat with a
> white board and a beer.  The raw notes I have don't really capture
> the main issue, which is that they have really just totally missed an
> opportunity to create a coherent addressing architecture.  Reading
> through the notes, I don't think they are in a state to send to the
> working group.   I'd rather not make time for this until we've had
> a chance to talk in person, but if you think my recording an abstain
> has twigged them and they need something, I'll produce it.
> 	I also want to re-iterate that I think it is too late 
> to go back and
> fix this, and I won't stand in the way.
> 						regards,
> 								Ted
> 
> 
> On Saturday, April 19, 2003, at 08:07 AM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 
> > Ted, you were going to give me some elaboration on the
> > incorrect addressing methods they are doing, right?
> >
> > I'd like to get that to the WG asap, so that I hopefully
> > get a response/explanation before we have it come back on
> > our agenda at the next telechat.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bert
> >
>