RE: Route Exclusion

[Ron Bonica <Ronald.P.Bonica@mci.com>]

Folks,

Are there any objections to adopting the route exclusion draft as a WG item?
If so, please post them to the mailing list by June 5. If not, CCAMP will
adopt the draft as a WG item.

                                                 Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:57 PM
> To: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Ron Bonica; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: stefaan.de_cnodder@alcatel.be; Cheng-Yin.Lee@alcatel.com; Adrian
> Farrel
> Subject: Route Exclusion
>
>
> Kireeti, Ron,
>
> You may recall that at SF there was a surprisingly large number
> of people (30+)
> who had read this draft and expressed an interest. (In today's
> climate, it seems
> unusual if all of the authors have read a draft!)
>
> We (the authors) are also seeing a fair bit of interest expressed
> to us from
> people who need the function and want to go ahead and start
> implementing - they
> want to know what the future of the draft is. At the same time,
> the ASON work
> seems to be pulling in this requirement, and I shouldn't be surprised if
> multi-area/multi-domain/multi-AS decides it is a requirement, too.
>
> So the question for you is, what do we do with this draft?
>
> There appear to be three possibilies:
>
> 1. The draft becomes a WG draft in the near future, and continues
> to develop
> with input from the WG.
>
> 2. The authors continue to spend their efforts on the draft with
> no particular
> IETF target in sight and without the GMPLS community having any realistic
> expectation of the draft going anywhere. Other standards bodies,
> needing the
> function, develop their own alternatives and so on...
>
>  3. The authors bring the draft forward as an individual
> submission to the IESG.
>
>  Well, you can guess which I think is the best idea.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian
>
>
>