RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

["Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com>]

Hi Adrian

1.Yes
2.Yes (I'm an author)
3.Yes
4.Yes

Regards,
Don 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk] 
> 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).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>