RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Kireeti,

There's always been a few things that I didn't like about G.709, so maybe we
can just go ahead and deprecate them in CCAMP.  Then we can figure this
liason stuff and tell the ITU about it.

Thanks,

John  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:04 PM
> To: Stephen Trowbridge
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
> 
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Stephen Trowbridge wrote:
> 
> > If they decide not to be involved and the other SDO goes ahead with
> > developing their own solution, they don't need to bless the 
> extension,
> > or even like it, but they do need to accept it.
> 
> Going back to the examples that Deborah brought up: what if other SDOs
> produced variants of SDH -- would you say that the ITU "do need to
> accept it"?
> 
> Kireeti.
>