RE: draft submission (fwd)

[Jim Boyle <jimpb@nc.rr.com>]

any thoughts on how to proceed, or anyone want to work directly to keep
the two drafts complimentary and non contradictory?


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:17:25 -0500
From: Ken Owens <keno@erlangtech.com>
To: Ken Owens <keno@erlangtech.com>, Jim Boyle <jimpb@nc.rr.com>
Cc: Vishal Sharma <v.sharma@ieee.org>, ejk@tech.org, fiffi@nortelnetworks.com
Subject: RE: draft submission

Hello Jim,

I received good news that the presentation went well, and that the draft is
well written and complements the design team's draft. Furthermore, the TEWG
decided to keep them as separate documents for now and the decision about
whether they should be merged or should be left as stand alone was deferred
for a while. The TEWG concluded that this work provide input to the design
team and that we should encourage people to have input and comments on the
list.

We were happy to hear that our effort is useful and complements the design
team. I would like to propose that we start a dialogue with the design team
about how to work together and send out an invitation on the list for
comments. Given that the design team effort was charter with generating a
new version by the end of September, I would like to send out an invitation
to the list by the middle of next week.

Please let us know your thoughts and proposed course of action.

Regards,

Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Boyle [mailto:jimpb@nc.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 10:53 PM
To: Ken Owens
Cc: ejk@tech.org; jimpb@nc.rr.com
Subject: Re: draft submission


On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Ken Owens wrote:

>
>
>

Are you (or designee) going to be at the meeting to discuss your
survivability draft?

[Ken Owens]
I unfortunately could not make it to London, however we asked Fiffi
Hellstrand of Nortel to present during out time slot, and she has graciously
agreed.

I've glanced at it a few times, and I'm wondering
where it's headed.  Is it complementary to the design team document (e.g.
somewhat independent), or can the major points of it be incorporated in
the design team document, or (in your opinion) is the design team document
an unsalvageable piece-o-junk and this should be considered by the wg as
an alternative starting point for requirements, etc...

[Ken Owens]
IMHO, the intent of this draft is to provide input to the Design Team
document, i.e. the major points of it should be incorporated in the design
team document. Where the draft is heading is up to the WG, however two
options are:

1. This document gets adopted by the design team as input to their effort,
and the authors join the Design team to incorporate the major points and add
direction.

2. This document gets accepted by the WG as a WG informational document that
documents the requirements and consideration for network survivability that
the design team uses to document their RFC.


Please use your time to *highlight* the differences with respect to the
design team document, and more importantly, note where you think this
document is heading.   Also, the list is a good place (preferable perhaps)
for such discussion.

[Ken Owens]
Our presentation has been laid out to accomplish your suggestion. After the
meeting if you would be kind enough to send me your thoughts on our draft
and the direction that the WG (or your personal opinion) would like to see
this effort proceed, I'd be glad to post information, questions, and
discussion topics to the list to solicit thoughts.