RE: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12

There has been a lot of acrimony in this discussion. I would like it to
stop.

Let's get back to discussing the technical merits of current IDs.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled finger-pointing...

dn

> -----Original Message-----
> From: bmwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Perser, Jerry
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 10:48 AM
> To: 'bmwg@ietf.org'
> Subject: RE: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12
>
>
> Tony,
>
> > Just for clarification, I sent a private email to Jerry with
> > nobody else included in the cc list.
>
> This is poor etiquette.  You expressed that your concerns
> regarding dsmterm
> I-D were not being address, while not expressing this to ALL the authors.
> David, Sumit, Shodha, and Scott have just as much right to your
> observation
> as I do.  In fact, they wrote most of the I-D.  I'm just the lucky bastard
> that got his name first.
>
> > David Newman did not receive an email from me.
>
> I send your "time to reply to my concerns" to ALL the authors of dsmterm
> I-D.  David's opinion is his, not mine.  The dsmterm I-D is made up five
> different individuals.  Any observations you make about the dsmterm I-D
> apply to all of the individuals.
>
> My reply to the mcast I-D last call is mine along.  David had no
> knowledge,
> input, or advise on my reply.  David knew of these issues.  He
> was CC on the
> email I send the authors on 4/22 (you, Michele, and the Chairs were also
> CCed).  If David has any concerns on mcast I-D last call, as an
> individual,
> he can post them like I did.
>
> > I made a personal observation that was taken out of context.
>
> I still do not understand the context.  If you have an issue with me, send
> me a personal message, even call me.  Debby has.  My phone number
> is on the
> I-D.  If you have an issue with dsmterm I-D (that are not addressed in
> dsmterm-06), you MUST include all 5 authors.  I can even include
> you in our
> next conference call so you can voice your concerns to ALL the authors.
>
> Jerry.
>
> > See enclosed
> > message.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony DeLaRosa
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:54 AM
> > To: 'Perser, Jerry'
> > Subject: RE: [bmwg] Comments on draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12.txt
> >
> >
> > Interesting that you would reply to the mcast I-D last call
> > but yet you
> > haven't taken the time to reply to my concerns regarding your
> > dsmterm I-D.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Newman [mailto:dnewman@networktest.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 4:54 PM
> > To: bmwg@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12
> >
> >
> >
> > OK, thanks. I ask because 1) Jerry Perser posted comments
> > earlier today and
> > 2) later today Jerry got email from someone at Ixia (with me
> > cc'd) attacking
> > Jerry for commenting during last call.
> >
> > Oh, how I love these inter-vendor squabbling matches... :-(
> >
> > dn
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bmwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-admin@ietf.org]On
> > Behalf Of Deric Lim
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 4:38 PM
> > To: 'bmwg@ietf.org'
> > Subject: RE: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12
> >
> >
> > David,
> > I am replying to Kevin's email requesting feedback from the
> > BMWG.  I am
> > recommending that this draft to be moved forward to informational RFC
> > status.  That is what I meant by "in agreement"
> >
> > Deric
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Newman [mailto:dnewman@networktest.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 4:28 PM
> > To: Lim, Deric [SC100:380:EXCH]
> > Subject: RE: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12
> >
> >
> >
> > with whom are you in agreement? I don't recall any such
> > recommendation being
> > made on the reflector. Was there some private communication I
> > missed? dn
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bmwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:bmwg-admin@ietf.org]On
> > Behalf Of Deric Lim
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 4:15 PM
> > To: 'bmwg@ietf.org'
> > Subject: RE: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that the mcast I-D is ready for consideration by the Area
> > Directors.  I am in agreement that we should move this forward.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin Dubray [mailto:kdubray@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 3:21 PM
> > To: bmwg@ietf.org
> > Subject: [bmwg] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12
> >
> >
> > BMWG:
> > A WG Last Call period for the Internet-Draft on "Methodology for IP
> > Multicast Benchmarking,"
> >        <draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12.txt>
> > will be open from 07 May 2003 through 14 May 2003.
> > A WG Last Call was last issued on version 10 of this draft.
> > Version 12
> > contains substantive changes since the previous Last Call.
> > Please weigh in
> > on whether or not you feel that this Internet-Draft should be
> > given to the
> > Area Directors for consideration in progressing the Draft to an
> > Informational RFC.  Send your comments to this list or
> > kdubray@juniper.net.
> >
> >
> > A URL for the Internet-Draft is:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-bmwg-mcastm-12.txt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bmwg mailing list
> > bmwg@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bmwg mailing list
> > bmwg@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
> > _______________________________________________
> > bmwg mailing list
> > bmwg@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
> >
> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> bmwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg
>

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg