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

From: Jaudelice Cavalcante de Oliveira <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:06:27 -0500 (EST)

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 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

---

From: Yuichi Ikejiri <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 22:41:35 +0900

Hi, 

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:06:27 -0500 (EST)

> 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.