RE: (M2PA) M2PA Implementor's Guide Kickoff

Hi Folks,

Let's cool things down, please!  Jeff's initial draft should in fact
be draft-craig-sigtran-m2pa-ig since it will not yet have been agreed to
be a WG draft.  Our intention should be to identify any areas of M2PA
that may lead to problems with interoperable implementations, based
on our experience.  This is different from saying the M2PA RFC is 
"wrong" - Brian is perfectly correct that the RFC is the standing
agreement.

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Brian F. G. Bidulock
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:57 AM
To: Craig, Jeffrey
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Sigtran] (M2PA) M2PA Implementor's Guide Kickoff

Craig,

I hope your descriptions are less vague than they are in this note.  I
look forward to commenting on your draft.  Perhaps you should call it
draft-craig-m2pa-ig because it is already far from consensus.  The RFC
_is_ the current consensus.

--brian

Craig, Jeffrey wrote:
(Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:41:49)
> Hello Brian,
> 
> Both Figures 15 and 16 are defective in that they fail to accurately 
> depict the L3L2 and L2L3 primitives that are essential to the 
> procedures being described.
> 
> The processor outage section is defective in that it fails to 
> adequately address the aligned not ready state.
> It also fails to adequately address the ambiguity in treatment of 
> received LSR based upon stream.
> 
> I am working on detailed problem descriptions and proposed new text 
> and new figures that addresses my concerns. Stay tuned.
> 
> As far as you not seeing any defects in the document, I am not 
> surprised, since you were an author. I think the RFC can better serve 
> its audience by being clear to everyone, not just the authors.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jeff
> 

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock
[email protected]
http://www.openss7.org/

_______________________________________________
Sigtran mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sigtran