Jan and Tom: Thanks for letting me know. Thanks for the clarification. Talk on.
Ed's comments at IETF 89 inquired about a technical discussion regarding FORCES and YANG rather than an "emotional" or simply business. Both aspects are important to a corporate decision, but it is the WG chairs that set the constraints for our discussion. I am still interested in the technical side of the Brocade decision. Sue -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Medved (jmedved) Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 8:04 PM To: Susan Hares; 'Jamal Hadi Salim'; 'Thomas Nadeau' Cc: [email protected]; 'Crabbe Edward'; 'Dean Bogdanovic' Subject: Re: [i2rs] consensus on I2RS protocol and model Sue, On 4/18/14, 4:51 PM, "Susan Hares" <[email protected]> wrote: >Jamal and Tom: > >Dean Bogdanovic and Ron Bonica clearly indicated there were two reasons: >business and technical. My understanding is that Ed Crabbe's context for >this discussion was to judge technical merit. Did I misunderstand the >context of this discussion to be engineering? > I re-read Ed¹s email: it calls for marshaling of arguments and discussion on the mailing list. It does not seem to say that the discussion and arguments ought to be purely engineering. Thanks, Jan _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
