[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: GMPLS Last Calls

To: "'Ash, Gerald R (Jerry)'" <gash@att.com>, "'v.sharma@ieee.org'" <v.sharma@ieee.org>
Subject: RE: GMPLS Last Calls
From: "Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 13:24:29 +0200
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, mpls@UU.NET, "'Thomas D. Nadeau'" <tnadeau@cisco.com>, Yakov Rekhter <yakov@juniper.net>
Delivery-date: Mon, 28 May 2001 04:28:02 -0700
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com

Hello Jerry

>correct, as I mentioned, SPs have been formally asked for their
>*requirements*, but not on the GMPLS extensions

Sorry ! It is an OPEN process since the beginning, everybody can contribute
and write a draft. There is no formal process where requirements from
operators are asked for. I am not aware of any IETF rule about that !

You were welcome to work with us since 1.5 years but you never came to us.
You cannot blame us that you never worked on it (we are not responsible for
that)! This is true for the thousands of internet drafts being written at
the IETF.

It is the responsibility of each company individually to decide if they want
to contribute or not ! It is not the job of others companies to go to each
possible operator/manufacturer and to lobby to have them involved.

Regards,

Eric

Prev by Date: RE: [T1X1.5] RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatena tion
Next by Date: RE: [T1X1.5] RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatena tion
Prev by thread: RE: GMPLS Last Calls
Next by thread: RE: GMPLS Last Calls
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread