Re: [CCAMP] Nit in CCAMP minutes

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Tue, 20 August 2013 13:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E32321F995F for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 06:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.132
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.132 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.133, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DagDDQmHai8p for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 06:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [66.147.249.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 99E1421F84E0 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 06:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 32058 invoked by uid 0); 20 Aug 2013 13:51:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 20 Aug 2013 13:51:13 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=7qHZ+DNzFXs+Pgb7Yb7WnxxKGkJ2oZHBDe+jlnceoec=; b=MV/zvC7wC6iYvJYQxWqeExQdfSk3nS7MU2M5QJpe9gjvjkLLSFsoWLSH/ofDTBorSEgIBj6sO34Zublr8PB3q1BW6V7IZWZHIFWsDPK7kFA7cU8ha71QCqGogrrPbQcN;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:51997 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1VBmL3-000434-KX; Tue, 20 Aug 2013 07:51:13 -0600
Message-ID: <5213744D.201@labn.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 09:51:09 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
References: <070d01ce9d4c$7494d7b0$5dbe8710$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <070d01ce9d4c$7494d7b0$5dbe8710$@olddog.co.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org, ccamp-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Nit in CCAMP minutes
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 13:51:43 -0000

Adrian,

Your corrections have been posted.  Any additional corrections would be
most welcome!

Lou

On 8/19/2013 10:24 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The minutes for items 20 and 21 show me saying:
> 
>> Adrian Farrel: AD hat off - My name appears on applicability I-D, but not on
> the use
>> cases. This is not an accident, if we go for option 1 fine, if we go for
> option 2 I would
>> not support. I do not think the approach is good or even possible. This is not
> how we
>> should build networks.
> 
> This is an unfortunate reversal of what I said.
> At around minute 56 of the audio file
> https://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf87/ietf87-potsdam1-20130731-1300-pm1.mp3 you can
> hear me say...
> 
> "AD hat off - My name appears on applicability I-D, but not on the use cases.
> This is not an accident. If we were to go for option 1 I would have severe
> problems. I'm definitely an option 2 person, so I can be in favour of one
> document and opposed to the other. I don't think the ONI approach is good or
> desirable. I don't like the mechanism proposed for sharing routing information.
> It's not that I see the UNI definition as being you must, must not share routing
> information, I just don't see that that's the way we should build networks."
> 
> Later on in the same section I am reported as saying:
> 
>> Adrian Farrel: 
> 
> Which is perhaps a little terse :-)
> 
> The audio records...
> 
> "The enhanced mode in L1VPN recognised there was function there, but didn't need
> to call it any other special type of interface. It was just two networks talking
> to each other."
> 
> 
> I'm not asking for a verbatim record (I like the way the minutes are reported as
> salient points not a transcript), but I would like the initial point sorted out
> a bit, please.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
>