RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Yes to all

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:52 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).
> 
> 
>