[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Status update
Sorry, I just realized that my previous responses to this issue were
Anyway, to say it again publicly, it is entirely my fault as I left your
name on the document. I did this as your contributions to the document were
left intact, and not removed as I had thought your conditions for authorship
revocation were stated to Walter (it helps to keep all the authors
informed)... But, now that I apparently caused this little ruckus, I hope it
will give you an opportunity to explain why (since we have never actually
talked about it). I believe your contribution to this effort will be
necessary for it to be successful, given your expertise in OO modeling. If
this effort is taking the wrong direction, then I would like to know why, so
that I can help make sure it doesn't.
If we cannot resolve your issues, than I do not see how NIM could ever be
successful. The idea is to bring subject matter experts together, working
within the context of a common model, not turn them away packing...
Regardless of the personalities involved.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrea Westerinen [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 6:52 PM
> To: Walter Weiss; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: Bert Wijnen (Bert)
> Subject: RE: Status update
> I am surprised that even though I asked specifically for my
> name to be taken
> off of the requirements draft as an author, it still remains.
> This is not
> standard practice in posting a draft, and I again request
> that my name be
> removed as an author.
> I will need to read the draft (which is surprising since I am
> listed as an
> author) to find out what you updated in the 01 version in
> capturing "all the
> issues and consensus to date on the list". It was not clear
> to me that we
> did indeed reach consensus.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Walter Weiss
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 11:06 AM
> To: 'email@example.com'
> Subject: Status update
> I apologize for the long delay. Between my ramping up on my
> new job and a
> number of other standards related activities, I have dropped the ball.
> However, we have not been completely idle. Dave Durham and I
> have completed
> a rev of the requirements doc that Dave has kindly been
> posted to the IETF
> We have also gotten approval for a BOF in Pittsburgh that
> Jeff Case and I
> will be co-chairing. An agenda will be sent out shortly. Due to some
> logistical issues, we are holding this session on Wednesday morning
> concurrent with DiffServ session 2 and MPLS session 1. If it is at all
> possible, I will try to get the time changed. However, I am
> not optimistic.
> I would like to emphasis that despite my recent distractions,
> it is becoming
> increasingly apparent that some work in this space is necessary as the
> issues associated with the definition of various management
> related data
> structures in DiffServ (MIB, PIB, QoS model, QoS device
> model, policy MIB
> and directory schema) are now leaking into Security, AAA and MPLS.
> Finally, since this latest version of the requirements draft captures
> (hopefully) all the issues and consensus to date on the list,
> it is now
> appropriate to start discussing the most appropriate language for
> representing models. This is planned to be part of the
> agenda. However, if
> people want to provide the list or the chairs with suggestions or
> recommendations for a grammar that satisfies the requirements
> for expressing
> the information model as described in this most recent draft,
> that would be
> greatly appreciated. Ideally some early discussion on the
> list would help
> move things along. Less ideally, a list that the chairs compiled from
> private emails would also be satisfactory.