perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

["Magorian, Daniel F." <>]

> It's the very lack of such documentation that helps propel this thread along

I'll ignore the fact that was basically a rude swipe on a public list by 
someone who obviously doesn't like what I'm proposing.  

Frequently when people ask you to write white papers, it's a not-very-subtle 
way to get them to shut up and go away and waste their time.  "Go spend days 
of your time writing it up, and then I'll read it over and think about it."   
The whole white paper space is so contaminated by vendor advertising that a 
lot of people ignore them completely.  Some do read them, of course.  But in 
my experience, talks are a lot more effective.  I'm also not talking about 
RFCs and the like.

No, I see this discussion as propelled by people vested in the traditional 
software-based PerfSONAR approach feeling threatened by the reality of new 
measurement hardware providing better timing accuracy at low cost.  Which is 
why I proposed a new  parallel LAN measurement task area, so all the people 
like me interested in that can leave alone all the people like you for whom 
WAN measurement using PerfSONAR works just fine.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Boolootian 
[mailto:]
 
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:59 PM
To: Magorian, Daniel F.
Cc: Alan Whinery; 
;
 Jason Zurawski; Andrew Gallo
Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] feedback on PTP

Dan said
> I could write some white papers and how-tos on it,
> but you know those don't usually get read or paid
> attention to.

That's not true at all.  I would strongly encourage you to do just
that.  It's the very lack of such documentation that helps propel
this thread along.