Re: LMP revision 04

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Yangguang,

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Yangguang Xu wrote:

> Well, you can take it as curiosity... :-)

<vendor hat>
Juniper Networks is not in the habit of announcing "We are working
on xyz"; our preferred mode is, "We have implemented xyz".
</vendor hat>

<chair hat>
Nevertheless, this may be of interest.  If an AD would volunteer,
perhaps folks can send him a *short* message stating:

Type: vendor/carrier
Company: (to weed out duplicates)
Interest level in LMP:
	For vendors:  opposed/yawn/interested/implementing/released
	For carriers: useless/yawn/useful/testing/deploying/deployed

and the AD can post a tally of the responses?
</chair hat>

> -- Some LMP function are generic and some are technology specific. Seperating
> them is desirable. That's what we did to GMPLS and it makes a lot of sense.
> Indeed this seperation can make LMP more popular because its generic portion
> will be deployed more widely.

<chair>
Could you pick out the "technology specific" aspects of LMP?  Preferrably
section by section, or even line by line.  This is being blown completely
out of proportion.
</chair>

<chair>
> -- With whatever hats on, when WG chair and technical advisor are co-authors of
> a draft, it makes hard, if not impossible, for other folks to argue against it.

Folks are arguing anyway :-)  And in the end, consensus rules.
</chair>

<wg participant>
> This situation doesn't change even if you let Ron make the call.

Does the situation change if we make you the chair and TA?
</wg participant>

<me>
Kireeti.
</me>