Poll on RFC4873 segment-recording-desired flag

[Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>]

All,
	Nic Neate correctly pointed out in our last meeting that the 
segment-recording-desired flag identified in RFC4673 was never formally 
assigned a value.  The flag is identified to be carried in the 
SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object.  The current set of defined SESSION_ATTRIBUTE 
object flags is available under the IANA "Session Attribute Object 
Flags" registry, see http://www.iana.org/assignments/rsvp-te-parameters/.

The Chairs of the WG intend to work with IANA for correct this omission 
and get a value assigned for the flag.  We would like to ask that those 
who have implemented RFC 4873, to inform us of what value they are 
currently using.  Our intent is then to ask IANA for assignment of the 
most used (and available) value.  Your response may be public or private 
at your choosing.  Private responses should go to either or both WG 
chairs.  All responses will be summarized (without identifying 
information) on the CCAMP WG mail list.

If you have an RFC 4873 implementation we ask that you provide the 
following information:

1.  Organization:
1.1   Organization url(s):

2.  Status:
2.1     [ ] Development
2.2     [ ] Alpha
2.3     [ ] Beta
2.4     [ ] Product
2.5     [ ] Other (describe):

3. Object Used
3.1     [ ] SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object
3.1.1      [  ] C-type - 1   LSP_TUNNEL_RA
3.1.2      [  ] C-type - 7   LSP Tunnel
3.2     [ ] Other (describe):
3.2.1      [  ] C-type - describe):

4. Value used object
4.1   [   ] Value used in SESSION_ATTRIBUTE object flags field
4.2   [   ] Value used in other object or field (describe)

5. Privacy
     Yes    No
5.1  [  ]   [  ]  May we publish your identity and Organization?


Thank you,
Lou (and Deborah)