The discussion in SG12 was where the work should be done. The concept was accepted but, being a QoS group, the details were left for SG13. The submission to SG 13 was slightly improved, but how much was from the discussion I am not clear about. But thats the function of such meetings.
I listened to all the "discussion" in SG13 and it was all clarification, not negative arguments, even from your company.The final vote was unanimous to proceed to a recommendation with the submission as the basis. Your words try to put this in a different light, but in fact there was total agreement.
I don't see how this is misleading.
Larry
At 09:15 PM 6/27/2005, Scott W Brim wrote:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2005 12:30:44PM -0700, Dr. Lawrence G. Roberts allegedly wrote:
> Steve,
> Thank you for your thoughts. I am not sure about the next step, but I can
> clarify some of the points that were unclear.
> British Telecom submitted it to the ITU SG12 in January and we had
> unanimous approval to be included as a concept for QoS in Y-1221. Then BT
> submitted it to SG13 as a detailed proposal of a signaling protocol and it
> again had unanimous approval to go forward as the basis of a recommendation.
Larry please be straightforward. Just because people allowed work to
go forward in each case does not mean there was unanimous approval.
In SG12 the proposed text was objected to and sent back. There was
approval to include the "concept" as you say, but only if the text is
improved. In SG13 there was considerable debate, and at the end the
group *allowed* exploration of the topic through development through a
new draft recommendation.
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf