FW: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-01.txt

[grash@taz.mt.att.com (Gerald R Ash)]

Somehow did not get forwarded to the TEWG:

> From grash@taz.mt.att.com Thu Dec  6 09:46:45 2001
> To: jboyle@pdnets.com, yakov@juniper.net, tnadeau@cisco.com, randy@psg.com,
>        kireeti@juniper.net
> Cc: grash@taz.mt.att.com
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts-01.txt
>
> Jim,
> Yakov,
> Tom,
> Randy,
> Kireeti,
> Any others who commented on this,
> Any others who want to comment now,
>
> I'm using my old-reliable UNIX email since goner zapped our Outlook (2 days now).
> Please respond also to grash@taz.att.com.
>
> Adrian was kind enough to forward me your posts re draft-ash-multi-area-te-reqmts.
> You all opposed having a separate multi-area-te requirements draft.  So, OK, that 
> leads to a couple of follow-up questions.  
>
> Given that:
>
> a. draft-ietf-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt calls for multi-area-te requirements
> (but has none at present),
> b. George Swallow stated at IETF-49 (see the IETF-49/TEWG minutes) that "at least 
> 15 SPs have expressed interest in this.  Don't need it today but want it on the 
> roadmap."
> c. at least one of you has authored an I-D proposing multi-area-te solutions,
>
> here are the follow-up questions:
>
> a. do we need multi-area te?
> if yes, then
> b. do we need multi-area te requirements?
> if yes, then
> c. should we add these requrements to draft-ietf-restore-hierarchy-00.txt?
> if no, then
> d. what should we do about multi-area te requirements?
>
> Thanks,
> Jerry