Subject: RE: [Capwap] WGLC timeline for Evaluation draft

From: "Saravanan Govindan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:30:42 +0800

Dave,

I respect your view on the current state of the Evaluation document. 

However, since the Evaluation document is subject to WG consensus, I
think it should represent that. 

In the spirit of a quick resolution, maybe we can get the Chairs' input
in this. 

Cheers,

Saravanan

-----Original Message-----
From: Nelson, David [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 12:06 PM
To: Saravanan Govindan; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [Capwap] WGLC timeline for Evaluation draft

Saravanan Govindan writes...

> My concern is that as a WG document, which is an output from the
CAPWAP
> WG as a whole, the Evaluation draft should also incorporate key
findings
> made outside the Evaluation Team review.
> 
> For consideration, these 'other' findings can be included in a
separate
> section that clearly highlights their origins.

I understand your concerns, but this is not the process that was agreed
to by the Evaluation Team, the WG Chairs and the Area Directors.  The
Eval Team draft reports the procedings and findings of the Eval Team.
It is what it is.  It is, in fact, *not* the output of the WG as a
whole, but specifically the output of the Evaluation Team.  This same
process has been used multiple times in various IETF WGs.

The WG is free to publish whatever additional evaluation documents it
wishes, but I don't beleive it is appropriate to add opinions and
recommendations to the Eval Team document that did not originate from
within the Eval Team process.

Regards,

Dave

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap

---

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:15:50 -0500

> think it should represent that.
 
Well, in fact ,the Evaluation Team document was *not* intended to be subject to WG consensus, when the Chairs and Area Director initially set the ground rules for the Evaluation Team process.  That's the basis of my issue with your suggestion to incorporate other opinions. 

> In the spirit of a quick resolution, maybe we can get the Chairs' input
 
Yes, I agree.  I would appreciate clarification from the Chairs.
 
Regards,

Dave