[Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5

avri@psg.com Sun, 24 October 2004 21:47 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02530 for <forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:47:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLqQV-00065O-NN for forces-protocol-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 18:01:23 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLq8N-0004tx-3O; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:42:39 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CLq3w-0004hL-JV for forces-protocol@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:38:04 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA02027 for <forces-protocol@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:38:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: avri@psg.com
Received: from tla.crepundia.net ([] helo=report.tla-group.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CLqHG-0005vE-8k for forces-protocol@ietf.org; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:51:50 -0400
Received: from [] (report.tla-group.com []) by report.tla-group.com (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id i9OLDPep032505; Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:13:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1098639759.1096.258.camel@jzny.localdomain>
References: <468F3FDA28AA87429AD807992E22D07E02579210@orsmsx408> <1E526654-24BF-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <417A23E6.7010504@zurich.ibm.com> <005b01c4b907$242b1790$020aa8c0@wwm1> <417AA8B6.1040601@zurich.ibm.com> <1098558745.1097.42.camel@jzny.localdomain> <CE5A3946-252D-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <128f01c4b9c0$fe9df280$845c21d2@Necom.hzic.edu.cn> <0F5DC2E6-25DB-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com> <1098639759.1096.258.camel@jzny.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <F8BFA8B3-2604-11D9-9DB1-000393CC2112@psg.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:37:57 -0400
To: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@znyx.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi@intel.com>, ram.gopal@nokia.com, "Wang, Weiming" <wmwang@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, forces-protocol@ietf.org, Ligang Dong <donglg@mail.hzic.edu.cn>, Robert Haas <rha@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: [Forces-protocol] Re: 01-5
X-BeenThere: forces-protocol@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: forces-protocol <forces-protocol.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/forces-protocol>
List-Post: <mailto:forces-protocol@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol>, <mailto:forces-protocol-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: forces-protocol-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 24 okt 2004, at 13.42, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:

> I think people may be confused if you are actually following the
> discussion (since you are unusually quiet) hence the comments you may
> have seen.

for the most part i was fine with the conclusions folks were coming up 
with.  in my attempt to reman as impartial in this group as possible, i 
only get vocal when things really concern me.  in many cases, i saw a 
lot of the disagreements as of the 6 of 1 and a 1.2 dozen of the other 
variety, with either option being workable.  in those cases where i 
thought it mattered, things went in a direction i was comfortable with, 
so why say "me too".

also due to my schedule, i have often been delayed many days in reading 
the email. so, often, by the time i read through the exchange there was 
very little left to say.

> The path issue has been resolved; i think we may be just talking past
> each other. The issue thats still open is the data packing.

can someone offer a note that expresses the still open conflict that 
all parties can agree with? the one i put back does not really express 
the still open issue as far as i can tell.

> The WG should see the draft after we are done i think. I wouldnt say we
> are.

i tend to disagree with this.  now that this is a WG document, and the 
WG is the owner of the doc, i believe they should have more frequent 
snapshots and should be brought into the discussions.

but i defer to the team and the chairs on this issue.

>> Anyhow, over the next 20 hours I will try to remain available as much
>> as possible to get a draft out that meets this team's rough consensus.
> Great.

except that i am not seeing any edits from anyone.

15 hours to go, and i plan to sleep some of them if at all possible.

i am currently working on a 00 - 01 change list appendix. which will 
show up in 01-7.


Forces-protocol mailing list