Re: Continued Poll for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds

["Ogaki, Kenichi" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Yes to all.

Best regards,
Kenichi

Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We have seen some good support for these I-Ds and no objections, but I 
> don't think we have seen anything like the level of support that was 
> evident in the room in Philadelphia. We haven't seen support from more 
> than half of the authors of the documents.
>
> So, please, if you haven't already done so, give an indication of 
> whether or not you support each of these four documents becoming 
> working group drafts. Remember, you can be in favor of some and not 
> other if you like.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:23 PM
> Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> >From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP 
>> working group documents.
>>
>> Please express your opinions.
>>
>> Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion 
>> about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that 
>> topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of 
>> making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the 
>> discussion may go on for a while.
>>
>> draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt
>> draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt
>> draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt
>> draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Adrian
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>