Re: [CCAMP] 答复: R: OSPF OTN considerations post IETF 82 (Issue 1/2)

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

John,
	I'm a little at a loss as to what you are looking for / arguing about
at the moment.  I've already said that (a) that I think we should
"table[ing] discussion on my [OTN] proposal" and (b) I (with others)
will submit an individual draft on the general issue.

You've stated that (b) serves no purpose nor contains any technical
content.  Given that the draft doesn't exist at the moment, I guess your
statement is technically correct at this time. Once the draft is
submitted, I'll be happy to resume this argument based on the actual
content of the draft.

Lou

On 12/20/2011 7:17 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>> See below for specific responses (as a WG participant).
>> > 
>>> > > How does the existence of this draft, which will have no new
>>> > > information, help the chairs gauge rough consensus on this issue in
>>> > > the WG,
>> > 
>> > It depends on which issue you are talking about.  If talking about the
>> > general issue as discussed above, I hope it will close it for the
>> > future.
>> > 
>> > If talking about my (individual, not chair) proposal of using multiple
>> > SC types for OTNv3, I don't think it immediately does.  What it will do
>> > is provide context for that proposal.  In the interim, I recommend (as
>> > a
>> > WG participant, not chair) tabling discussion on my proposal until we
>> > know which way the general issue is resolved.
> [JD]  The only issue is your specific proposal.  
>