Fwd: Opinion on two new WG drafts (CORRECTION)

[JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>]

I just had a brief discussion with Adrian. As requested per Kireeti I will add the following sentence to draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp: "In the context of this draft, the node in charge of any ERO expansion within its domain is always along the inter-domain TE LSP path". Then the question for the WG should read:

Is the WG in favor of adopting draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp as a WG document (yes/no) ?

thanks.

JP.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> Date: March 18, 2005 3:04:51 PM EST
> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> Subject: Opinion on two new WG drafts
> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
>
> Our charter encourages us to work on inter-domain solutions.
> There are two drafts which we should consider as working group drafts:
> - draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-path-comp-00.txt
> - draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-02.txt
>
> In Minneapolis the room seemed to be in favor with two caveats:
> - draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-path-comp must include a
> statement clarifying that in the context of this draft, the node in
> charge of any ERO expansion within its domain is always along
> the inter-domain TE LSP path
> - draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-02.txt must wait
> for draft-ayyangar-ccamp-lsp-stitching-00.txt to become a
> CCAMP draft
>
> Assuming these requirements to be fulfilled, please say whether you
> support these drafts becoming CCAMP drafts. A simple yes/no is enough, but
> reasons against are useful.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian