Re: Weak turnout : was-> A proposal for moving ahead on BC models

[Yuichi Ikejiri <y.ikejiri@ntt.com>]

Hi, 

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:06:27 -0500 (EST)
Jaudelice Cavalcante de Oliveira <jau@ece.gatech.edu> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have followed DS-TE requirements and protocol development very closely.
> I feel that Francois' proposal of not mandating a default model in
> diff-te-proto and updating diff-te-reqts to reflect the same, and to
> document RDM, MAM, and whatever other model that may be developed in the
> future, as standards track RFCs is the way to go.
I have the same opinion too.

I think that DS-TE has many applicablity from our perspective as one of
SPs. Therefore I strongly hope that things move on and reach the standard
as soon as possible.

Regards, 
Yuichi Ikejiri
NTT Communications Corp.

> 
> I want to add a few comments, even though I know we are not discussing the
> importance of diff-te-reqts and diff-te-proto.
> 
> diff-te-reqts (and also more recently diff-te-proto) has been read,
> commented, used and referred to by many researchers. I myself have
> proposed a preemption policy (following diff-te-reqts), which used RDM as
> BC model, and was published and presented at INFOCOM 2002.
> 
> As a reviewer of papers submitted to IEEE conferences, I have seen the
> growing interest in DSTE related topics (impossible to count how many
> authors cite diff-te-reqts and diff-te-proto) and also particularly in
> preemption, although I can only speak from the research community point of
> view.
> 
> Regards,
> Jaudelice.
> 
> >Thank you very much Vijay. That was/is exactly what I worry about.
> >If not enough people (and 10 is the absolute minumum, but having seen
> >the attendence of TWEG sessions, I'd expect 25 or more) can speak up
> >to state one of:
> >
> >  - I read it and I am positive, it is good stuff
> >  - I read it and I see no problems or objections
> >  - I read it but I cannot determine if it is bad, but I can see that
> >    what has been discussed in the WG is indeed in the document
> >  - I read it and I have these nits/objections...
> >  - I did not read it cause this is not relevant to my xxx
> job/work/function
> >  - I did not read it cause I think this is nonsense
> >
> >Then I get the feeling that we're just allowing a small group of
> >people push their petty-project through the process. That seems NOT
> >good to me. We need serious WG participation in reading and commenting
> >in one of these forums above, before we can declare that we have WG
> >consensus on a document to be presented to IESG for approval as RFC
> >(in whatever form).
> >
> >Bert
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________
> Jaudelice Cavalcante de Oliveira
> Broadband and Wireless Networking Laboratory
> Georgia Institute of Technology
> School of Electrical an Computer Engineering
> Phone: (404) 8946616 ~ FAX: (404) 894-7883
> http://www.ece.gatech.edu/~jau
> 
> 
>