Re: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents

Rajan Rao <> Fri, 05 October 2012 23:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5A421F85B8 for <>; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 16:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1mtgvY-Izvo1 for <>; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 16:14:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35E2621F85A7 for <>; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 16:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([fe80::dc68:4e20:6002:a8f9]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 16:14:40 -0700
From: Rajan Rao <>
To: Lou Berger <>, CCAMP <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents
Thread-Index: AQHNoKqUhxksxzpg70KuueMT3/c0v5erVsoA
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 23:14:39 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 23:14:41 -0000

1. yes
2. yes


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 7:31 AM
Subject: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents


The WG has several WSON-related drafts including:
   1. draft-ietf-ccamp-general-constraint-encode
   2. draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-general-constraints-ospf-te
   3. draft-ietf-ccamp-rwa-wson-encode
   4. draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signal-compatibility-ospf 	
   5. draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling

These drafts are currently identified as being on the Standards Track.  The WG typically requests Standards Track publication of documents that fill/fix a clear protocol function and/or have strong WG support. Given the scope of this work as well as the time the drafts have been active in the WG, we'd like to solicit the WG's input on the publication track to be requested.

Once the WG reaches consensus on these drafts (as indicated by a
*future* WG last call), Standards Track publication can be requested or these drafts could also be published via a non-Standards Track, see section 4.2 of RFC2026 for all options.

Please let us know (preferably by responding on the WG list) if you:

a. Support targeting all of these documents for Standards Track

b. If no, support targeting some of these documents for Standards
   Track publication?
  [1, yes/no
   2, yes/no
   3, yes/no
   4, yes/no
   5, yes/no]

c. If no to any of the above, which status do you think appropriate?
  [Experimental or Informational]

d. Finally, we are most interested in hearing from anyone who has,
   or is planning an implementation based on the WG drafts.  We
   understand that some may not want this information published,
   so please let any of the chairs and/or ADs know (Lou,
   Deborah, Adrian or Stewart), and they will publish the
   information without any personal or company identification.

Keep in mind that this mail is *not* starting a WG last call on any of the documents identified above.  We'd like input on intended publication status prior to any last call discussion.

Lou and Deborah
CCAMP mailing list