RE: Drafts update

[Rajiv Papneja <rpapneja@osf1.gmu.edu>]

Hello Kireeti,

 Here is my opinion on the list of proposed drafts:
 
 1. draft-dubuc-lmp-mib-02.txt:				        {Yes}
			           (CCAMP WG documnet)	
 2. draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt:  			{Wait}
 3. draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-02.txt: 		{Yes}
 4. draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-framework-00.txt - Yes:		{Yes}
 5. draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt:   {Wait}
 6. draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt:			{Yes}

 I was just wondering that why (draft-ietf-isis-traffic-02.txt) did not
make it to the list. Thanks.
 
  Regards,
   -Rajiv

********************************
Rajiv Papneja (GRA)
Advanced Internet Laboratory
George Mason University,
G10, Johnson Center,
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
Tel: 703.993.4703
email: rpapneja@osf1.gmu.edu
********************************


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Kireeti Kompella
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 5:37 AM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> 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.
> 
>