RE: [RPRWG] November Plenary
During the last meeting, task groups were formed to tackle different areas.
When will activity in that front begin?
Thanks,
Krishna
-----Original Message-----
From: RDLove [mailto:rdlove@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 4:22 PM
To: 'Mike Takefman'; Raj Sharma
Cc: 802.17
Subject: Re: [RPRWG] November Plenary
Raj, excellent point. Thanks for being pro-active in trying to plan out how
we need to proceed to make the progress that will be required to hold our
schedule. In my mind the clear theme for the November meeting is narrowing
down the proposals. This theme stands even with the understanding that
brand new proposals will be entertained at this meeting. The implication of
holding those seemingly contradictory objectives in one hand is that any new
proposals must be well thought out and developed to be given any serious
consideration. It is my expectation that by the November plenary we are
likely to have at least a couple of competing proposals that are following
the same general rough outline, so that we can compare major section by
major section. I would like to see the outline discussed on the reflector
and posted so that everyone understands the framework within which to look
at contributions, and within which to make fresh contributions, including
alternative proposals.
I also agree that work that moves us closer to consensus should take
precedent over other presentations. I would be in favor of posting a note
on the reflector requesting each presenter to be prepared to specifically
state the action steps or text changes that are wanted. The presentation
should contain the reasons for these changes. Alternatively, the
presentations may be technical analysis to show why specific analysis,
simulation, or tests are required before we make particular choices (I
consider that type of information critical to moving closer to a decision,
although there is no recommended technical solution proposed based on the
presentation).
I would ask anyone advocating any particular solution over others that have
been presented to thoroughly understand the competing draft texts.
Finally, I would expect that we may need a number of ad-hoc meetings on
Tuesday and Wednesday for people focused on particular sections to get
together to try to bring competing sections closer to each other.
Best regards,
Robert D. Love
Chair, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
President, LAN Connect Consultants
7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
email: rdlove@xxxxxxxx Fax: 208 978-1187
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raj Sharma" <raj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Mike Takefman'" <tak@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stds-802-17@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 5:19 PM
Subject: [RPRWG] November Plenary
>
> Mike,
>
> I think it is very important for us develop
> "themes" for each of our next WG meetings.
> So far, we have had the following themes:
> 1) Objectives of RPR
> 2) Proposals and ideas
> 3) Clarifications of ideas in written form
> using common vocabulary.
>
> We should decide on the
> theme for November so that we can manage
> the progress of the standard consistent
> with our timeline commitments.
> The November meeting should be focused on
> discussions on what the scope of the
> first draft. In addition, it is key that
> we start narrowing down on alternatives
> in each area. Unifying proposals accompanied
> by detailed written drafts must
> be given the highest importance.
>
> Obviously, narrowing down the alternatives
> must be done with some rules and not just
> based on the rhetoric "since we do it this way
> today it is the right way to do it." Perhaps,
> we can work some ground rules on comparing
> various "unifying" proposals. Also, I would
> suggest that "FYI" and "here is my view
> of the world" presentations be limited to late
> evenings or early mornings giving people a choice
> to manage their time better. (liaison activities
> with other standard's group don't fall in this category)
>
> One more thing, the Q&A time allotted
> following each presentation
> will be inadequate moving forward. Most of the
> time is used up by remarks made after the presentation
> to either support or put down a proposal. This
> significantly reduces time to engage in questions
> that helps the presenter get constructive feedback to
> improve their proposals. We need some brainstorming
> on this on the reflector on how to manage this.
>
> raj
>
>