Re: WG drafts - My correction

[Arthi Ayyangar <arthi@juniper.net>]

Dimitri,

> 2. I have seen consensus for draft-ayyangar-ccamp-lsp-stitching to be
> published as a WG draft and the authors will submit it as
> draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching soon
>
> -> agreed - note: would you tell us (or authors) when comments made on
> this list would then be incorporated ?
-------> I think the plan was to first republish as WG draft with *no*
changes. Following that, we could submit another version shortly incorporating
the comments made on the list.

thanks,
-arthi

>
> 3. The name of the third draft is
> draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp. This is the draft that we
> need to consider.
>
> As JP says, he plans to add the sentence "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" to this draft.
>
> -> reading through the document and taking section 4 as the core, i
> wonder why examples of the same section are prescriptive ? is there by no
> means a way to re-write this document in prescriptive mode (since afaik
> this is intended to become a proposed standard and not an informational
> document) and only give examples in appendix and not use examples to
> describe its core content -
>
>
> Question: With the addition of this sentence, are we content to accept
> this draft as a WG draft?
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
>