Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

[Jean Philippe Vasseur <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

Yes to all.

JP.

At 01:52 PM 8/10/2004 +0100, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>Hi,
>
>In San Diego we had four drafts for immediate consideration as working 
>group drafts.
>(There were a few other drafts that needed a little attention first, but 
>will come up for
>consideration in the near future.)
>
>Please send your comments to the list or to the chairs. A brief "yes" or 
>"no" will
>suffice, but a reason with any "no" would be helpful.
>
>Thanks,
>Adrian
>
>
>1. Loose Path Re-optimization
>draft-vasseur-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt
>This draft is stable and has an implementation.
>The work is predominantly pertinent to inter-domain signaling, but could 
>also be used
>within a domain.
>The meeting in San Diego reported relatively few as having read the draft, 
>but no
>objection to it becoming a WG draft.
>
>2. A Transport Network View of LMP
>draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-02.txt
>There has been a bit of off-list discussion about this draft in which it 
>has become clear
>that there are definite differences between the ASON and CCAMP uses and 
>views of LMP. This
>is precisely what the draft is intended to expose. That is, the draft is 
>not intended to
>unify the views of LMP, but rather to represent the two views within a 
>single document so
>as to highlight the differences.
>In San Diego, no-one raised objections to this being a WG draft.
>
>3. Graceful restart
>draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-01.txt
>This draft represents a merger of two previous drafts and was created at 
>the specific
>request of the WG in Seoul.
>There is some more editorial work to be done on the draft, but the main 
>technical content
>appears to be stable.
>In San Diego there was some support and no opposition to this becoming a 
>WG draft.
>
>4. Inter-domain Framework
>draft-farrel-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-01.txt
>** I am principal editor. Please take any issues with this to Kireeti **
>This draft provides a framework for the multi-domain solutions work that 
>the WG is
>chartered to address.
>In San Diego there were some questions about whether the draft should be 
>extended to cover
>other, more complex, inter-domain functions. There was no conclusion about 
>whether this
>should be done before or after becoming a WG draft (if it should be done 
>at all).