RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

["Richard Rabbat" <rabbat@fla.fujitsu.com>]

Dimitri,
Some snipping, the rest inline.

> From: dimitri papadimitriou [mailto:dpapadimitriou@psg.com] 
...
>
> hi richard, see in-line
> 
> >>>> 1. Loose Path Re-optimization
...
> > 
> > Agree on these points. Would the authors address these 
> issues in the 
> > next revision?
> 
> imho, these changes should be committed in the next revision and this 
> independently of its promotion as WG I-d
> 
Agree. Yes to the document.

> > And while you're at it, can you fix the double quotes throughout?
> 
> this has been recorded in the meeting minutes and hope it will be 
> addressed in the next revision
> 
Actually, the recorded minutes are about another Vasseur draft; I want to
make sure the authors are aware about problems in this as well.

> >>>> 2. A Transport Network View of LMP
> >>> 
> > I support making it a WG draft, at least to be able to initiate
> > liaisons with SG15. I'm wondering though what the authors would like
> > the final outcome to be.
> 
> as part of the outcome, if there are commonalities in terms 
> of discovery 
> functionality, then an interoperable/compatible LMP mechanism may be 
> considered within the scope of the process
> 
> > If all issues are resolved, then in my opinion this draft should be 
> > made to expire eventually. Otherwise, documenting the areas of 
> > divergence as Informational would be more than appropriate.
> 
> nice way to conclude the discussion point because if there are no 
> commonalities in terms of functionality and scope, we would 
> have (with 
> this i-d) closely documented why we didn't do so (but yes, i 
> agree with 
> you in both cases this document is meant promoted in the long 
> term for 
> the record)
> 
Great. From my p.o.v., I'd say let's move forward on this as well with the
clarifications you gave.