Subject: RE: AW: Internet Draft Submission: Orchestrally Conducted Traffic

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:54:14 -0500

Hummel Heinrich wrote:

> IMHO,
> the solution which I proposed relates to a problem that has 
> been clearly
> expressed in
> the TE-WG: "to balance the traffic load ,...to combat 
> congestions, both
> preventively and reactively,..."

And Curtis Villamizar had previously written:

> > The wording in the charter indicates that the WG is interested in
> > solving a specific problem.  That does not mean that the WG has
> > expressed any interest at all in the specific solution to 
> that problem
> > that you have proposed.

Hummel, the two positions are not mutually exclusive. You can both be
correct. The hope is that if the WG has decided _not_ to use Hummel's
approach, or any aspect of it, that there is good rationale behind this
decision. Heaven knows, people do get engrossed with their particular
religious dogma.

It would be helpful if such explanations, even if brief, were provided when
a suggestion is rejected. But I suppose there is no mandate that every
alternative approach be laboriously studied and its rejection fully
documented.

Bert
[email-masked]

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 14:17:01 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, "
> [email-masked]

The requirement in the IETF is that there be rough consensus that a
proposal be accepted as a WG document.  Lask of rough consensus is
sufficient reason to reject a proposal.

If you are speaking in favor of making this a WG document, I think
that would make you the first besides Hummel.  There does not seem to
have been an outpouring of support.

No decision has been made but I suggest that 1) I shut up, 2) if
anyone else has comments they voice them or express their disinterest
through cotinued silence, 3) the WG chairs ask at the upcoming meeting
if there is support for this draft if the author requests that it be
considered as a WG doc.

Curtis