would it be possible to take into account
compatibility with RFC3946 when addressing the following point you mentioned
here below
"I think
that we will be able to adopt this work as a WG draft, but we
should not do that until we have seen a first stab at the protocol
extensions."
much thanks,
- dimitri.
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
22/12/2005 01:27
Please respond to "Adrian Farrel"
To:
<ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
cc:
Subject:
VCAT/LCAS
Hi,
In Vancouver there was clear support in the room that a group wanted to
work on this topic.
draft-bernstein-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-01 was submitted in October and
provides a fair summary of the problem space in sections 1 and 2.
The draft fades out in section 3 "Possible Extensions to GMPLS to
support
additional VCAT/LCAS scenarios" as it starts to identify the specific
requirements to extend GMPLS protocols.
I suggest that the authors should:
- gather a group of interest parties to work on this
- keep in mind that protocol extensions are done in support of
implementations (that is, not for completeness, but because someone
is building product)
- beef up section 3 to list the requirements
- write a new section for the solutions
I think that we will be able to adopt this work as a WG draft, but we
should not do that until we have seen a first stab at the protocol
extensions.
If the authors could let us know their progress and plans, that would be
great.