Re: [Srcomp] The slides for presentation

Hi Ron, Wim and Darren,I would like to set up a short meeting to coordinate the comments from you.

Due to the IETF meeting is on Monday. Could we pick up a slot during 00:00am ~04:00 am, UTC time, Sunday (2021-7-25)?

 I prefer to 1:00an~2:00 am, UTC.

If that is possible, Darren , could you please book a webex link?

---------
Best Regards,
Weiqiang

---邮件原文---

发件人：Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>

收件人：Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>,"wim.henderickx" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com>

抄送：srcomp <srcomp@ietf.org>,"ddukes=40cisco.com" <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>

发送时间：2021-07-25 03:46:11

主题：Re: [Srcomp] The slides for presentation

Weiqiang,

I am afraid that the point may be lost in the clutter of Side 4. Also, the point is most applicable on slide 17, where the WG is likely to focus.

                                                       Ron

 Juniper Business Use Only

From: Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 11:08 AM To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> 'wim.henderickx' <wim.henderickx@nokia.com> Cc: 'srcomp' <srcomp@ietf.org> 'ddukes=40cisco.com' <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> Subject: Re: Re:Re: [Srcomp] The slides for presentation

 [External Email. Be cautious of content]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your comment.

Hi All,

I hope we can find a way which can make everyone happy J

How about the following solution?

1)

We add following sentence to the Slide 4, which introduce the requirement draft

“All requirements maybe not equally important.”

2)

We remove the following sentence from Slide 17, which give some summary for analysis draft instead of requirements

“All requirements are not equally important. The working group must decide which are more significant.”

3) 

We add following sentence to the Slide 18

"It is up to the SPRING WG to go next steps. The requirements and analysis can be used as input to that decision”

B.R.

Weiqiang

发件人: Ron Bonica [mailto:rbonica@juniper.net] 发送时间: 2021年7月24日 21:31 收件人: chengweiqiang wim.henderickx 抄送: srcomp ddukes=40cisco.com 主题: RE: Re:Re: [Srcomp] The slides for presentation

Weiqiang,

I think that it is important to mention that all requirement are not equally important. This is because one requirement is important to one operator and totally unimportant to another. Likewise, one requirement might be important to 99% of operators and another only 1% of operators.

Given that we unanimously agreed to the text at our last meeting, I think that it is a little late to change it without unanimous consent on the Friday before the presentation.

                                                                                                                                                      Ron

 Juniper Business Use Only

From: chengweiqiang <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 2:04 AM To: wim.henderickx <wim.henderickx@nokia.com> Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> Cc: srcomp <srcomp@ietf.org> ddukes=40cisco.com <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> Subject: Re:Re: [Srcomp] The slides for presentation

 [External Email. Be cautious of content]

Thanks, Wim. 

I will update the table. --------- Best Regards, Weiqiang

---邮件原文--- 发件人："Henderickx，Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com> 收件人：chengweiqiang <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>,rbonica <rbonica@juniper.net> 抄送：srcomp <srcomp@ietf.org>,"ddukes=40cisco.com" <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> 发送时间：2021-07-24 12:52:25 主题：Re: [Srcomp] The slides for presentation 

I believe this is a better way of putting things.

An individual person can make the statement

Also on the comparison table with the green colors, does it make sense to align the order of the columns.

e.g. we have in all the slides CSID, CRH, …

while in the comparison slide it is CRH, CSID, …

this is a minor detail but I just wanted to bring it up

From: chengweiqiang <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com> Date: Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 05:05 To: rbonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com> Cc: ddukes=40cisco.com <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, srcomp <srcomp@ietf.org> Subject: Re:Re: [Srcomp] The slides for presentation

Hi Folks,

Thanks for comments.

Could we use following sentence instead:

"It is up to the SPRING WG to go next steps. The requirements and analysis can be used as input to that decision”

The sentence reflects the DT' goals.

Any comment?

B.R.

--------- Best Regards, Weiqiang

---邮件原文--- 发件人：Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> 收件人："Henderickx，Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <wim.henderickx@nokia.com> 抄送："Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>,WeiqiangCheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>,"srcomp@ietf.org" <srcomp@ietf.org> 发送时间：2021-07-24 05:37:22 主题：Re: [Srcomp] The slides for presentation

Do you agree that some requirements are more important than others? 

If so, was is the harm in leaving the statement in place?

Ron

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 23, 2021, at 2:05 PM, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <wim.henderickx@nokia.com> wrote:

 [External Email. Be cautious of content]

That was also my view, that individual people can bring this up, but for us to put that in the text is a bit odd. My 2 cents

From: Srcomp <srcomp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Friday, 23 July 2021 at 17:43 To: Weiqiang Cheng <chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com>, srcomp@ietf.org <srcomp@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [Srcomp] The slides for presentation

Hey team, I think we need to remove this sentence from Slide 17 before presenting the deck. “All requirements are not equally important. The working group must decide which are more significant.”

This presentation is about the analysis conclusions and not about requirements.  We unanimously concluded the requirements months ago, and the SPRING WG has reviewed them.

I’m fine to remove the sentence completely or replace it with something more relevant to the analysis and next steps...

“It is up to the SPRING WG to choose a proposal, using this analysis as input to that decision”

Darren

On 2021-07-21, 9:47 AM, "Srcomp" <srcomp-bounces@ietf.org> wrote:

Hi Team,

I updated the slides according to the discussion at the meeting.

Please check if the P9~P12 need to be updated, which provide some brief introduction of CSID, CRH, vSID and UID.

B.R.

Weiqiang Cheng

发件人: Weiqiang Cheng [mailto:chengweiqiang@chinamobile.com] 发送时间: 2021年7月21日 16:31 收件人: 'srcomp@ietf.org' 主题: The slides for presentation

Hi Team,

I prepared some slides as enclosed file.

Please review it and let’s have some discussion at today’s meeting.

B.R.

Weiqiang Cheng

-- Srcomp mailing list Srcomp@ietf.org https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/srcomp__!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VNikXNYskekrVSh_GfGXDXO600pLh4rnA5-QNEPsz8pM_B9CK3fpSSl2nV3A750O$ 