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

[John Fee <John.Fee@wcom.com>]

[ post by non-subscriber ]

I vote #3.

Regards,

John Fee
WCOM
----

-----Original Message-----
From: Yong Xue [mailto:yong.xue@wcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:32 AM
To: John.Fee@wcom.com; Curtis Brownmiller
Cc: Yong Xue
Subject: Fwd: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF



Take this and reply to 'ccamp-wg ' <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>

>-----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.