IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04.txt

zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn Tue, 28 August 2012 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E69B721F8593 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -95.114
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-95.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.045, BAYES_05=-1.11, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_BAD_ID=2.837, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bb898G1IgTvk for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:33:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD1E21F8525 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.30.3.21] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 232556255862908(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=SSL_DHE_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:27:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q7SGXUY3001151; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:33:31 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn)
In-Reply-To: <50327601.2060502@labn.net>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 0C7ABA84:6365F90D-48257A68:00598BBE; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007
Message-ID: <OF0C7ABA84.6365F90D-ON48257A68.00598BBE-48257A68.005ADEAB@zte.com.cn>
From: zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:33:30 +0800
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-08-29 00:33:32, Serialize complete at 2012-08-29 00:33:32
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 005ADEA748257A68_="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn q7SGXUY3001151
Cc: venkat.mahalingams@gmail.com, ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04.txt
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:33:52 -0000

Lou

We have received comments offline/online and addressed them into the draft 
v-03 from the polling version 02, then updated the draft to v-04 according 
to the comments received since IETF84 meeting and pushed the proposal into 
the mailinglist also to hear more opinions.

The authors think we have addressed all the comments and this draft is 
ready for WG consideration now.

Any suggestion? 

Best regards :)

Fei



Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> 
2012-08-21 01:38

收件人
zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn
抄送
ccamp@ietf.org
主题
Re: [CCAMP] I-D Action: 
draft-zhang-ccamp-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-tunnel-num-04.txt






Fei,
                 To respond to your procedure point:

On 8/17/2012 3:27 AM, zhang.fei3@zte.com.cn wrote:
> I am not sure whether this draft should follow the the procedures
> defined for WG documents or not.

Individual drafts are completely under the control of the authors.  Of
course, they may choose to listen to feedback of WG participants in hope
of getting their draft accepted as a WG draft....

Lou

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status