[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
My preference would go to option (2).
Sven.
Jennifer Yates <jyates@research.att.com> on 01/03/2002 15:16:27
To: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
cc: ccamp-wg <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>(bcc: Sven VAN
DEN BOSCH/BE/ALCATEL)
Subject Re: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T
: and OIF
My vote is for (1).
Jen
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" wrote:
> 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.