Re: [manet] draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology and draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming-00.txt

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

Hi All,

I don't know why we have to move things fast. Moving things fast adds
possible errors, and may confuse the community. We need to consider
that participants need to give a decision on when to move things fast
and when not to move things fast. I don't agree to move this draft
fast nor agreed to move the multitopology draft fast. We could have
done fast process if the draft was discussed before published, so that
the WG can decide if fast is required. Just my opinion how things go
fast in organisation that involve all.

On 11/10/14, Thomas Heide Clausen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Since, of course, all y’all are compulsively reading the ID-announce mailing
> list ;) you’ll have seen draft-dearlove-manet-tlv-naming-00.txt document
> appear just today.
>
> This is in response to the review from our AD on
> draft-ietf-manet-olsrv2-multitopology
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg16875.html
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/manet/current/msg16875.html>), in
> which he indicates that we probably should re-think the way we name TLV
> types.
>
> As our AD requested, the authors did re-think, discuss a bit also with our
> AD and chairs, and came to a conclusion ... and that conclusion is in this
> I-D.

I request that our discussions related to adopted work and future
discussions to be done on the list or within minutes. I think the WG
should be able to be included in discussion between AD and authors,
why WG was excluded?


Best Regards,

AB