RE: Proposed response to the Liaison Statement on ASON Routing

["Varma, Eve L (Eve)" <evarma@lucent.com>]

Hi,

I concur that sending the liaison is indeed a Good Thing :-)  Asking for comments again of course stimulates the standards editing part of my brain, and so I will offer a minor editorial "tweak", which hopefully maintains the spirit of the response.

In the phrase of your proposed response below:

"We believe that the link-state routing paradigm that is being 
progressed at the IETF in the CCAMP WG in conjunction with the OSPF and ISIS WGs,
does meet the above requirements."

I would suggest to substitute: "We believe" with "It is our expectation"

and at the end of the text to substitute:

"does meet" with "will meet".

Couldn't resist ;-)

Best regards,
Eve



-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 10:56 AM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; sob@harvard.edu
Subject: RE: Proposed response to the Liaison Statement on ASON Routing


Hi Bert,

> I am kind of surprised that I (believe I) did not yet see
> any comments. Neither positive nor negative ???

To be fair, John Drake reminded me to respond to the liaison, and
Deborah Brungard sent me private mail that she thought that the
wording was fine, and that sending the liaison was a Good Thing.

But there were many others who thought that we should be more
proactive about liaisons, and I haven't heard from them ....

Warning: I will take the lack of comments to mean tacit approval.

Kireeti.