Hi,OK. I apologize for having the draft with the gunk after the end of document. We will resubmit it after removing the gunk and fixing the format problems.
Thanks for the new version of this draft.
As soon as you get the chance (immediately after San Diego), can you please resubmit it
sorting out the formatting problems and removing all of the gunk from the end. You don't
need to wait for any other changes before you do that.
The draft is getting mature at the current version. But some issues are still open, e.g., bi-directional LSP, service interwork function (See Section 4 and 5). In my opinion, the proposed category falls into the category of standards track since several protocol exertions are needed (virtual FA and numbered FA).Can you please let us know what you think the status of this draft is and what the proposed category is (informational or standards track)?
It seems to me to be an important topic and one that needs to be addressed, but skimmingMPLS to GMPLS migration/interwork need to be addressed in order to introduce GMPLS into the already deployed MPLS-based infrastructure, which is not GMPLS capable. I would be happy if the community give us feedback and comments (including suggestions to skim the draft).
the draft again it feels like there are a lot of words for what should be some fairly
simple concepts. What do the rest of the WG think?
Cheers,
Adrian
Thank you for your interest. Kind regards,
-- Kohei Shiomoto NTT Network Service Systems Laboratories