Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

[RPRWG] Re: RAH-telephone conference June 4, 2002 - Foils van As




All, in an email note to the 802.17 Rate Ad Hoc, Harmen expressed
disappointment and frustration over the process we are using to resolve
issues.  Since I believe my reply to his note may have significantly broader
interest and applicability than just to the Rate Ad Hoc, I am sending it to
the 802.17 reflector.

Dear Harmen,

First let me state that I believe you are making an important and positive
contribution to the progress of the 802.17 working group.  Let me add that
the process by which we reach consensus is often extremely frustrating for a
great many of the participants.  Accepting your premise that there are
significant concerns with the present algorithm, there are only two ways to
approach improving the draft:  (1) Correcting the deficiencies, and (2)
wholesale replacement of sections.  Whichever approach is taken, consensus
for the change must be developed.  Because vital business interests drive
many of the voters in the working group, it is important to work with them
and understand the areas of change they can work with and the ones they will
fight, even if the proposed change is technically superior.

I do not believe that we can develop a successful standard if any group
stonewalls, refusing to acknowledge existing deficiencies, and refusing to
take steps to insure the 802.17 standard is a superior product.  We will
also not be successful is those with other proposed algorithms are unwilling
or unable to see how their proposals can be incorporated in the draft in the
least disruptive manner. The only way we will successfully conclude our work
effort is for all sides to acknowledge the problems and work together to
develop an acceptable solution that is both technically superior, and able
to gain the support of camps with different sets of business interests.

Harmen, I have long been a believer in win-win standards development.
Your input is a vital contribution to the group.  The existing framework is
also vital.  A third vital part is the set of business interests of the
participants.
When we can come together seeking to meld these and other factors, rather
than seeking to "break the back" of the opposition, we will start to make
progress.   For now, you are correct, the 802.17 standard development
process is moving at a crawl instead of galloping along.

Best regards,

Robert D. Love
President, Resilient Packet Ring Alliance
Vice Chair, IEEE 802.17 RPR WG
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