RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

["zafar ali" <zali@cisco.com>]

Hi Dimitri, 

Thanks for the clarification; I remembered the discussion but was not 100%
sure of the final take. 

Given this, as I mentioned earlier, I am "in favor" of this document to be a
WG ID. 

Thanks

Regards... Zafar

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
>[mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of dimitri papadimitriou
>Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:05 PM
>To: zafar ali
>Cc: 'Adrian Farrel'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; 'Kireeti Kompella'; 
>'Tove Madsen'
>Subject: Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status
>
>
>zafar,
>
>the point has been already asked during the meeting, to summarize, the 
>basic idea:
>
>- is to have a "decoder ring" for understanding ITU work and IETF work
>   (-> for publication as informational RFC only)
>
>- is NOT to define anything in this document as the intention is first
>   to understand the two groups work efforts and then do a series of
>   liaisons to determine/assess if any additional work is needed
>
>hope this clarifies,
>
>thanks,
>- dimitri.
>
>---
>zafar ali wrote:
>
>> "yes" to (1), (3) and (4),
>> 
>> Conditional "yes" to draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-02.txt, 
>> depending on the answer to the following:
>> 
>> Does Author plan to address link management solution space between 
>> ASON and GMPLS in the same document? I would prefer that and 
>in which 
>> case I think adaptation of this document as a WG document to 
>be deferred to a later
>> point.   
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Regards... Zafar
>> 
>> 
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>>>[mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>>>Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:52 AM
>>>To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>>>Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Tove Madsen
>>>Subject: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>In San Diego we had four drafts for immediate consideration as
>>>working group drafts. (There were a few other drafts that 
>>>needed a little attention first, but will come up for 
>>>consideration in the near future.)
>>>
>>>Please send your comments to the list or to the chairs. A
>>>brief "yes" or "no" will suffice, but a reason with any "no" 
>>>would be helpful.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Adrian
>>>
>>>
>>>1. Loose Path Re-optimization
>>>draft-vasseur-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt
>>>This draft is stable and has an implementation.
>>>The work is predominantly pertinent to inter-domain signaling, 
>>>but could also be used within a domain. The meeting in San 
>>>Diego reported relatively few as having read the draft, but no 
>>>objection to it becoming a WG draft.
>>>
>>>2. A Transport Network View of LMP
>>>draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-02.txt
>>>There has been a bit of off-list discussion about this draft 
>>>in which it has become clear that there are definite 
>>>differences between the ASON and CCAMP uses and views of LMP. 
>>>This is precisely what the draft is intended to expose. That 
>>>is, the draft is not intended to unify the views of LMP, but 
>>>rather to represent the two views within a single document so 
>>>as to highlight the differences. In San Diego, no-one raised 
>>>objections to this being a WG draft.
>>>
>>>3. Graceful restart
>>>draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-01.txt
>>>This draft represents a merger of two previous drafts and was
>>>created at the specific request of the WG in Seoul. There is 
>>>some more editorial work to be done on the draft, but the main 
>>>technical content appears to be stable. In San Diego there was 
>>>some support and no opposition to this becoming a WG draft.
>>>
>>>4. Inter-domain Framework
>>>draft-farrel-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-01.txt
>>>** I am principal editor. Please take any issues with this to 
>>>Kireeti ** This draft provides a framework for the 
>>>multi-domain solutions work that the WG is chartered to 
>>>address. In San Diego there were some questions about whether 
>>>the draft should be extended to cover other, more complex, 
>>>inter-domain functions. There was no conclusion about whether 
>>>this should be done before or after becoming a WG draft (if it 
>>>should be done at all).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> .
>> 
>