[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

multi: Re: Protocol operations proposal deadline / shield-eos-...

>>>>> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:14:12 -0400 , "Glenn Waters" <gww@nortelnetworks.com> said:

Glenn> The Shield draft is reasonably new -- please read and supply
Glenn> comments.

Sorry that I haven't been very vocal (ie, silent) for the past few
months, but I had numerous work deadlines pushing up against me that
have recently passed.

FYI, I'll be submitting a new copy of my draft before the 15th cut-off
for new work submissions (even though technically it's already
submitted, I'll try to publish a newer update with more material in

So, I've finally gotten around to reading Dave's draft and have the
following comments:

Macro-vs-Micro evolutionary (an older discussion):
  I agree that adding small benefits to the existing PDU types may be
  possible and beneficial.  However, in the long run adding all the
  "hacks" that you'd need to in order to successfully fix all known
  problems will be quite extensive and I'm convinced that the
  resulting efficiency would be reduced and complexity increased for a
  small number of gains.  There is a large number of known problems
  and tackling them one at a time will be time-consuming result in
  complex "hacks" to get them all solved.  A few other people have
  expressed similar well-worded view-points as well.  In short, in
  order to put a fix in place which is fully backward compatible, the
  resulting complexity increases which I don't see as a good thing in
  the long run.

  In the short run, I have no problems putting forward both smaller
  and larger solutions, as long as the progress of the larger
  solutions isn't impacted (IE, work must go forward quickly on a
  bigger-simpler-easier-to-use global solution, and a delay can not be
  incurred at this point while energy is focused only on short-term
  solutions first).  IE, iff [sic] the WG has sufficient energy to
  carry multiple proposals forward, this doesn't bother me in the
  slightest if there is consensus to do so.

Dave's Extended Capability Negotiation draft:

  [there is enough content in what I wrote, that I'll include it in a
  different thread]  

Wes Hardaker
Network Associates Laboratories