Break Link and Remote Fault

[Thomas Dineen <tdineen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gentlepeople:

	I think we have the cart before the horse here. First
we need to understand why the proposal failed.

	Did it fail because of opposition to the concept of
signaling Break Link and Remote Fault, or did it fail because
of opposition to the proposed method of signaling in the IFG?

	I would suggest that we first develop a consensus
on whether this function is required. This consensus could be
demonstrated in the form of an objective. Secondly if the
first question is answered in the affirmative we should then
pursue consensus on the method, and lastly the detailed
proposal.

	Now I know this process may have schedule implications,
but as the results of the last meeting demonstrate, consensus
can be difficult to schedule.

Thomas Dineen

 Hi,

The LSS proposal was not initially accepted to be part
of draft D1.0. The opponents of this proposal felt that
this was too complicated a method for reporting Break
Link and Remote Fault. Since I've heard many times on
this reflector and in the meetings that, if a proposal
is going to be shot down a substitute should be made to
take its place, I'd like to request just such a substitute.

Another thing to remember. According to Jonathan's
schedule, this was the "last new proposals" meeting.
I'll be interested to hear proposals for break link
and remote fault reporting that do not include major
new ideas.