I vote for (1).
Regards;
Osama Aboul-Magd
Nortel Networks
P.O. Box 3511, Station "C"
Ottawa, ON, Canada
K1Y - 4H7
Tel: 613-763-5827
e.mail: osama@nortelnetworks.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:37 AM
To: ccamp-wg
Subject: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
CCAMP WG members,
before we start down another many 100s of emails re-discussing
the same topic....
PLEASE express your support for one of the 3 options that Kireeti
posed to the WG. Don't elaborate... just help the WG chair(s) to
figure out the (rough) consensus of the WG. The choices formulated
by Kireeti:
> So, here we are again, arguing over this. Let's follow the AD's
> suggestion and look for consensus in the WG.
>
> 1) Do you think we should have just a single set of traffic parameters
> and label values for SDH, and none for SONET?
> or
> 2) Do you think we should have one for SONET and one for SDH, with
> the proviso that, if an SDH equivalent is available, one SHOULD
> use the SDH equivalent?
> or
> 3) Do you think we should have one for SONET and one for SDH, with
> the proviso that, if an SDH equivalent is available, one MUST
> use the SDH equivalent?
>
> (in the above, SHOULD and MUST are to be interpreted as in RFC 2119.)
>
> PLEASE respond with just (1), (2) or (3), and avoid long diatribes!
Thanks
Bert, speaking as AD who would like to see the WG take
a decision on this topic.