IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion

Otmar Lendl <lendl@nic.at> Tue, 11 August 2009 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <lendl@nic.at>
X-Original-To: drinks@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: drinks@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98803A6AB1 for <drinks@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FsOHQnPR2eMV for <drinks@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bofh.priv.at (fardach.bofh.priv.at [88.198.34.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3835A3A6F67 for <drinks@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [84.20.184.64] (mk084020184064.a1.net [84.20.184.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bofh.priv.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8F84CDD6; Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:01:23 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4A81BFFE.8050604@nic.at>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:01:18 +0200
From: Otmar Lendl <lendl@nic.at>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Elwell, John" <john.elwell@siemens-enterprise.com>
References: <35FE871E2B085542A35726420E29DA6B01F18918@gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com> <8BC845943058D844ABFC73D2220D46650863B5B0@nics-mail.sbg.nic.at> <35FE871E2B085542A35726420E29DA6B01FA1C64@gaalpa1msgusr7a.ugd.att.com> <4A803F75.50503@nic.at> <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0023D229D@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
In-Reply-To: <0D5F89FAC29E2C41B98A6A762007F5D0023D229D@GBNTHT12009MSX.gb002.siemens.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: drinks@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [drinks] Comment on today's drinks discussion
X-BeenThere: drinks@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DRINKS WG <drinks.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/drinks>
List-Post: <mailto:drinks@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/drinks>, <mailto:drinks-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 20:07:42 -0000

Elwell, John wrote:
> Otmar,
> 
> Why do you say both WGs are to blame? SPEERMINT does indeed have the
> LUF/LRF split, so what do you feel is the problem in SPEERMINT?

John,

I haven't read the speermint docs (or the mailinglist) in a while, and
missed the last session, too. But a quick glance at
draft-ietf-speermint-voip-consolidated-usecases-13 shows fundamental
LUF/LRF missunderstandings in that document. The SED should be the output
of the LRF and not the LUF.

*shrug*

> Also, perhaps you should post this to the SPEERMINT list too and say
> that discussions are taking place on the DRINKS list (to avoid ongoing
> cross-posting).

I was mentioned by name in this thread, thus I replied here.

/ol
-- 
// Otmar Lendl <lendl@nic.at>, T: +43 1 5056416 - 33, F: - 933 //

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email