Re: [mpls-tp] regarding editorship of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis

["Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Huub,

Please see inline.

Best regards,

Nurit

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Huub van Helvoort [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:52 AM
To: [e-mail]; Q10/15; Ad hoc MPLS-TP
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: regarding editorship of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis

 

All,

 

Apparently the fact that my name appears as editor on the

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis causes a fair amount of

confusion.

<Nurit> I cannot see how a confusion can be created. An editor means an
editor. First it was an editor of individual draft and then it became an
editor of the MPLS WG draft. There is only one role that an editor of a
document can have in each lifecycle (individual and WG) of a document.
\<Nurit> 

 

It was my intention to be editor as an IETF member, 

<Nurit> and this was very welcomed. \<Nurit>

however

there are people that interpret my name/role differently.

They see it as being editor as an ITU-T member and recently

even as being editor as an ITU-T Q10 rapporteur.

 

<Nurit> I have never heard of such an interpretation. An editor of an
IETF document is an editor of an IETF document. 

What I have heard or even said by myself is that you (as an editor) were
pretty much aware of the document and of its content.  

There was a claim that the ITU-T or Q10 were not aware of the document
or the content. Apparently at least the rapporteur of the document knew
about it and of its content. 

I also believe that your technical view and ideas are the same
regardless whether you are an IETF member or an ITU-T rapporteur. Isn't
it so or do you have different views according to the SDOs meetings you
participate in? \<Nurit>

 

The latter is even used in discussions to claim that

Q10 endorses the text in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis

because the rapporteur is editor.

 

<Nurit> I have never heard such a claim and never said that by myself! I
have referred to the fact that as an editor you were aware of the
document and of its content.

Also I did not see any objection from your side to adopt the document as
a WG document and did not see any proposal from your side for any text
to change the content. Of course, an editor is a good position to
influence the content. Did you ever propose any text that was not
accepted? 

It is just a logical interpretation that if you are an editor of the
document and you did not propose any text to change the content and did
not argue against the content, it means that you agree with it. Isn't
this a logical interpretation?

It is true that you indicated that more work is needed. But this does
not contradict any of the above. \<Nurit> 

 

To avoid any further confusion, especially regarding the

latter, I withdraw as editor from this draft.

Another reason for this withdrawal is that I still cannot

support the contents despite my attempts to change it.

<Nurit> I cannot recall any attempt to change the content from your
side. Can you please forward your e-mails with the proposals? \<Nurit>

 

Regards, Huub.

 

-- 

================================================================

Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...