Subject: [mpls-tp] regarding editorship of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:51:39 +0200

All,

Apparently the fact that my name appears as editor on the
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis causes a fair amount of
confusion.

It was my intention to be editor as an IETF member, however
there are people that interpret my name/role differently.
They see it as being editor as an ITU-T member and recently
even as being editor as an ITU-T Q10 rapporteur.

The latter is even used in discussions to claim that
Q10 endorses the text in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis
because the rapporteur is editor.

To avoid any further confusion, especially regarding the
latter, I withdraw as editor from this draft.
Another reason for this withdrawal is that I still cannot
support the contents despite my attempts to change it.

Regards, Huub.

-- 
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 15:57:08 +0200

Hi Huub,

Please see inline.

Best regards,

Nurit

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Huub van Helvoort [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 10:52 AM
To: [email-masked]; Q10/15; Ad hoc MPLS-TP
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: regarding editorship of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis

All,

confusion.

<Nurit> I cannot see how a confusion can be created. An editor means an
editor. First it was an editor of individual draft and then it became an
editor of the MPLS WG draft. There is only one role that an editor of a
document can have in each lifecycle (individual and WG) of a document.
\<Nurit> 

It was my intention to be editor as an IETF member, 

<Nurit> and this was very welcomed. \<Nurit>

however

<Nurit> I have never heard of such an interpretation. An editor of an
IETF document is an editor of an IETF document. 

What I have heard or even said by myself is that you (as an editor) were
pretty much aware of the document and of its content.  

There was a claim that the ITU-T or Q10 were not aware of the document
or the content. Apparently at least the rapporteur of the document knew
about it and of its content. 

I also believe that your technical view and ideas are the same
regardless whether you are an IETF member or an ITU-T rapporteur. Isn't
it so or do you have different views according to the SDOs meetings you
participate in? \<Nurit>

<Nurit> I have never heard such a claim and never said that by myself! I
have referred to the fact that as an editor you were aware of the
document and of its content.

Also I did not see any objection from your side to adopt the document as
a WG document and did not see any proposal from your side for any text
to change the content. Of course, an editor is a good position to
influence the content. Did you ever propose any text that was not
accepted? 

It is just a logical interpretation that if you are an editor of the
document and you did not propose any text to change the content and did
not argue against the content, it means that you agree with it. Isn't
this a logical interpretation?

It is true that you indicated that more work is needed. But this does
not contradict any of the above. \<Nurit> 

<Nurit> I cannot recall any attempt to change the content from your
side. Can you please forward your e-mails with the proposals? \<Nurit>

Regards, Huub.

--

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:00:13 +0100

Huub,

People will always be confused about stuff, and you shouldn't let that drive 
your actions.

But if you feel uncomfortable remaining as editor of a document where you 
don't support the content, that is fine. You should ask the remaining 
editors to resubmit the I-D dropping your name. It would be sensible to 
indicate to them whether you wish to retain recognition as a contributing 
author, be mentioned in the acknowledgements section, or be flushed from the 
cache completely.

I hope that you will raise your objections to the content on the MPLS-TP 
mailing list. This is where disagreements on content are supposed to be 
aired. I hope we can thrash out the differences long before the document 
comes to working group last call.

at a time when I hear voices raised in the ITU-T to expend greater effort on 
analysing the different options for OAM, I hope we can rely on your 
continued participation in the discussions.

Regards,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Huub van Helvoort" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Q10/15" <[email-masked]>; "Ad hoc MPLS-TP" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 8:51 AM
Subject: regarding editorship of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis