IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Asking again about draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements

"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Mon, 15 October 2007 17:56 UTC

Return-path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhUAf-0004ab-82 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:56:05 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhUAe-0008MD-Mf for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:56:05 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1IhU1j-00025w-R8 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:46:51 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.1
Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <zali@cisco.com>) id 1IhU1h-00024R-Fe for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:46:50 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,278,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="406591816"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2007 10:46:42 -0700
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l9FHkfiI028748; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:46:41 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l9FHk797012837; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:46:41 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.20]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:46:34 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Asking again about draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:46:34 -0400
Message-ID: <BABC859E6D0B9A4D8448CC7F41CD2B07054B3200@xmb-rtp-203.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <04e201c80f45$d1eba2e0$0601a8c0@pc6>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Asking again about draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements
Thread-Index: AcgPT4OaGR6s+yYSTQ6JWYBHyyU9IQAA6Q0w
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2007 17:46:34.0329 (UTC) FILETIME=[53D5EC90:01C80F53]
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15480.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--10.601900-8.000000-31
X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No
X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1040; t=1192470401; x=1193334401; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=zali@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Zafar=20Ali=20(zali)=22=20<zali@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Asking=20again=20about=20draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam -requirements |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22tom.petch=22=20<cfinss@dial.pipex.com>,=20=22Adrian=20Farrel=22 =20<adrian@olddog.co.uk>,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20<ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; bh=mH6TyCxysoD60aCPiSlY2wF7HzKLxGErqNa0tJ5xtDs=; b=0AhIaPE+33DQY5fNQsseWHZ9sF5q3eg9NJZEC60/Ks159rsSCLcZf7PD0AozUIkLKIL+af4d dmFVZ1im7zrDlZ8aT0J4BBzkPtC0asdvA209cqjoUn7I8Xc36+nyGm6k;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=zali@cisco.com; dkim=pass (s ig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
> To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 3:16 PM
> Subject: Asking again about draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > When we asked about adopting 
> > draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements-01.txt as a WG 
> document we didn't 
> > get thorough consensus, and since both Deborah and I are 
> authors on the 
> > draft, we decided we should play it very safe.
> > 
> > The new revision, 
> draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements-02.txt, attempts 
> > to reach closure on the issues raised when we polled the 
> list, and some of 
> > our own concerns.
> > 
> > So, second time of asking...
> > 
> > Do you think 
> draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements-02.txt should be 
> > adopted as a CCAMP working group draft?
> > 

In Favor, 

Thanks

Regards... Zafar 

> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email