IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Opinion sought on drafts being adopted by CCAMP

"Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com> Tue, 09 March 2004 21:44 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00581 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:44:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B0p1w-0007QX-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:44:52 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B0p0z-0007GU-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:43:53 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B0p05-00076I-00 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:42:57 -0500
Received: from lserv by psg.com with local (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B0ori-0006qQ-1t for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:34:18 +0000
Received: from [12.7.169.25] (helo=w2ksjexg01.ciena.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1B0orX-0006jD-I2 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 21:34:07 +0000
Received: by w2ksjexg01.ciena.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <FNNB0NRY>; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:33:45 -0800
Message-ID: <829F074A10F98943A218DC363D09C92A01476A7A@w2ksjexg06.ciena.com>
From: "Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com>
To: 'Adrian Farrel' <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Opinion sought on drafts being adopted by CCAMP
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:34:05 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60

Hi Adrian,

Comments:

-- egress control - yes.  
   The question of what kind of target came up, BCP, Info, etc -
   Whatever kind of document it winds up being, I think one
   important result should be marking 3473 as being supplemented
   by the new document to avoid any future confusion.

-- tunnel tracing - yes

-- rsvp for e2e recovery - there seemed to be still some concerns
   at the meeting, so no (not yet)

-- segment recovery - no (not yet)

Cheers,

Lyndon
   

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 3:46 AM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Opinion sought on drafts being adopted by CCAMP


All,

At the CCAMP meeting today we discussed making several drafts working group items. Can you
please express your opinion (yes/no) on whether each of the following drafts is ready to
become a CCAMP working group draft.

Feel free to express yes with reservations. If you have reservations or objections, please
express them on the list. if you need anonymity for your comments then please filter them
through the chairs.

Silence will be taken as meaning nothing, so please say what you think.

GMPLS Signaling Procedure For Egress Control
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-berger-gmpls-egress-control-01.txt

Generic Tunnel Tracing Protocol (GTTP) Specification
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bonica-tunproto-05.txt

RSVP-TE Extensions in support of End-to-End GMPLS-based Recovery
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lang-ccamp-gmpls-recovery-e2e-signaling-03.txt

GMPLS Based Segment Recovery
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-segment-recovery-00.txt

Thank you,
Adrian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email