RE: Drafts update

["Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>]

Dear All,

>5. draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt - not sure

I hope at least that all the people that claimed that virtual concatenation
is THE solution will enjoy and support this work since it is only intended
to maximize the use of virtual concatenation in a network using GMPLS
signaling. I am also claiming that virtual concatenation is THE solution in
this draft.

It does NOT define ANY concatenation type.

It just tries to find an ITU-T converter between standard contiguous
concatenation and standard virtual concatenation as close as possible to the
source.

At least this time I am only referring to ITU-T standards :-) So don't blame
me :-)

Kind regards,

Eric


-----Original Message-----
From: Yangguang Xu
To: kireeti@juniper.net
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Sent: 7/30/01 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Drafts update



Kireeti,

My "votes" :
 
 1. draft-dubuc-lmp-mib-02.txt - YES
 2. draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt - not sure
 3. draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-02.txt - if 6 is in, should
this belong
to OSPF WG?
 4. draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-framework-00.txt - YES
 5. draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt - not sure
 6. draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt - YES
 
Thanks,

Yangguang

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kireeti [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 3:37 PM
> To: ccamp
> Cc: kireeti
> Subject: Drafts update
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> Can we get a sense of the consensus whether the following drafts
> should be made CCAMP WG documents?  Please respond with
> (a) yes
> (b) no
> (c) wait
> 
> 1. draft-dubuc-lmp-mib-02.txt
> 2. draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt
> 3. draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-02.txt
> 5. draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt
> 6. draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt
> 
> (Note: for draft-dubuc-lmp-mib-02.txt, the question is, should this
>  be a WG document, either in MPLS or CCAMP.)
> 
> Thanks,
> Kireeti.