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

[Guangzhi Li <gli@research.att.com>]

(1) is better.

-- Guangzhi

Diego Caviglia wrote:

> I do agree with Jennifer.
>
> My vote is (1).
>
> Diego.
>
> Jennifer Yates <jyates@research.att.com>@ops.ietf.org on 01/03/2002
> 15.16.27
>
> Sent by:  owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>
> To:   "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> cc:   ccamp-wg <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
>
> 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.