RE: spc connections

["Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com>]

Hi Yakov,

I respectfully disagree with the suggestion, as
7713.2/3474 provides a valid solution that does not
require changes to the text to begin with.

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:yakov@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 2:15 PM
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: 'John Drake'; 'Kireeti Kompella'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: spc connections 


Lyndon,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 1:06 PM
> To: Ong, Lyndon; 'Kireeti Kompella'
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: spc connections
> > I understand that you have many aspects to weigh, and 7713.2 is
> > only one of them.  However, the SPC Label procedure is one where
> > there have been no technical issues, and it has been implemented
> > and tested.  Other people on the list have concluded that there
> > is a reasonable case for separating this from the ERO, and it is
> > not in fact supported by the current procedures in 3473.
> 
> 
> JD:  Do you think that if you continue saying this that it will somehow
> become true?
> 
> LYO: Yes, I believe that discussing issues on the mailing list may actually
> lead to some better understanding and common agreement :o)  

It certainly lead to better understanding - Lou's proposed text is
the proof of this. Ditto for Kireeti's proposed text. 

And now, since we do have the text, unless the text has *technical*
flaws I would suggest to close the discussion.

Yakov.