Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

[Greg Bernstein <gregbern@yahoo.com>]

Yes to the LMP draft. Hopefully this can lead to a
"common view".
The others sound reasonable and probably less
controversial.

Greg B.
--- Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> 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).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail