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

Rajan,

was this in response to
> b. If no, support targeting some of these documents for Standards
>    Track publication?

does this mean no on
>    3, yes/no
>    4, yes/no
>    5, yes/no]

?

Lou

PS As a reminder to all, we'd really like to hear about implementation
status:
> 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.


On 10/5/2012 7:14 PM, Rajan Rao wrote:
> 1. yes
> 2. yes
> 
> Thanks
> Rajan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 7:31 AM
> To: CCAMP
> Subject: [CCAMP] Input on publication track of WSON solutions documents
> 
> CCAMP,
> 
> 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
>    publication?
>   [yes/no]
> 
> 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
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
>