RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

["Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>]

Yes to all-
Deborah 

-----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).