RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

2)

-----Original Message-----
From: Bala Rajagopalan [mailto:BRaja@tellium.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 6:16 AM
To: 'Mannie, Eric '; ''Wijnen, Bert (Bert)' '; 'ccamp-wg '
Subject: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF


Vote for (2).

Bala

-----Original Message-----
From: Mannie, Eric
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; ccamp-wg
Sent: 2/26/02 6:17 AM
Subject: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF

(2) for me

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:37 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.