On Apr 7, 2020, at 13:58, Warren Kumari <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:06 AM tom petch <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: From: Warren Kumari <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: 06 April 2020 16:07 On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 6:36 AM tom petch <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: <tp> Warren, understanding better what you have in mind, I suggest a few changes to the Abstract and Introduction, as below. My language is probably a bit tighter, omitting some adverbs but that is just a matter of style. The changes are not great but for me they make the (limited) scope clearer (and yes, all the cases which I had in mind are now excluded:-) Thank you - I incorporated your changes verbatim (at least, I tried to, but it required some rejiggering to get the formatting right), and posted a new version - this text does a much better job of explaining the scope. Yes, this captures what I think is a very typical use case (and one similar to what I had in mind when I first read this). Though I might have said “layer 1” or “base connectivity” instead of fiber to be agnostic to the medium used for connectivity. To the other bit of changed text around costing time and money, I think what COVID-19 is showing us is that the dispatching of clued staff may not be possible given local, national, or global restrictions (in addition to being a drain on time and money), but that is more of me thinking aloud. I think this current text has helped close out some of the remaining issues. Joe
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
