Re: [Srcomp] The slides for presentation

[Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 2:04 AM
To: wim.henderickx <[e-mail]>; Ron Bonica <[e-mail]>
Cc: srcomp <[e-mail]>; ddukes=40cisco.com <ddukes=[e-mail]>
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)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人：chengweiqiang <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,rbonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄送：srcomp <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,"ddukes=40cisco.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/40cisco.com__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VluGZ98gSqBJyoUsbxzt1YN_FUIuS90z_jcduZE8xrY_Gh6oglmqRrDV6gSqCp6y$>" <ddukes=40cisco.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/40cisco.com__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VluGZ98gSqBJyoUsbxzt1YN_FUIuS90z_jcduZE8xrY_Gh6oglmqRrDV6gSqCp6y$>@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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 05:05
To: rbonica <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: ddukes=40cisco.com <ddukes=[e-mail]<mailto:ddukes=[e-mail]>>, srcomp <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
收件人："Henderickx，Wim (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
抄送："Darren Dukes (ddukes)" <ddukes=40cisco.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/40cisco.com__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VluGZ98gSqBJyoUsbxzt1YN_FUIuS90z_jcduZE8xrY_Gh6oglmqRrDV6gSqCp6y$>@dmarc.ietf.org>,WeiqiangCheng <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>,"[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Darren Dukes (ddukes) <ddukes=[e-mail]<mailto:ddukes=[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, 23 July 2021 at 17:43
To: Weiqiang Cheng <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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:[e-mail]]
发送时间: 2021年7月21日 16:31
收件人: '[e-mail]'
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
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/srcomp__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VNikXNYskekrVSh_GfGXDXO600pLh4rnA5-QNEPsz8pM_B9CK3fpSSl2nV3A750O$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/srcomp__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VNikXNYskekrVSh_GfGXDXO600pLh4rnA5-QNEPsz8pM_B9CK3fpSSl2nV3A750O$>