RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

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

Thanks. This sounds good. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don Fedyk
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 8:53 PM
> To: Richard Rabbat; Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> Cc: 'Adrian Farrel'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; 'Kireeti Kompella'; 
> 'Tove Madsen'
> Subject: RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status
> 
> 
> Hi Richard
> 
> Inline
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Rabbat
> > Subject: RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Dimitri, inline...
> > 
> > > 
> > > hi richard, all, - see in-line
> > > 
> <snip> 
> > > >> 2. A Transport Network View of LMP
> > > > Not sure. Adrian mentioned that this would possibly
> > identify items
> > > > of work for ITU and IETF. What is the thinking of the
> > authors about
> > > > the draft after the protocol modifications are finished?
> > > >
> > > > If the expected outcome is an alignment of the IETF and ITU
> > > views on LMP, then the draft would have served its purpose
> > and would
> > > not
> > need
> > > publication as Informational.
> > > 
> > > your question is sensible, the reason is that in order to 
> exchange 
> > > views we need first to agree 1) that we want to work on 
> it then 2) 
> > > that we are in agreement about these views (you will also 
> find part 
> > > of the response to your in section 6.4) and finally 3) 
> that we are 
> > > in agreement on how to progress the work
> > > 
> > 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. 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.
> 
> Generally I agree. The draft has evolved from being a 
> description of ITU discovery to a parrallel description of 
> LMP and ITU discovery terms. So the final outcome is 
> evolving. I have to discuss with other authors for next steps 
> and this is why I would defer your final view question.  
> 
> Regards,
> Don 
>