IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Danny Prairie <dprairie@cisco.com> Mon, 15 October 2007 23:33 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 1IhZR0-0000Qg-6N for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:33:18 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhZQw-0006d6-P2 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:33:15 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1IhZJA-000GZw-Hp for ccamp-data@psg.com; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:25:12 +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=BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.1
Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <dprairie@cisco.com>) id 1IhZJ8-000GZE-48 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:25:11 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,279,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="237598447"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2007 16:25:09 -0700
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l9FNP897015312; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:25:08 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l9FNOsk9024484; Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:24:59 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:24:58 -0400
Received: from danny-prairies-computer.local ([10.82.218.11]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:24:58 -0400
Message-ID: <4713F6C7.2050007@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:24:55 -0400
From: Danny Prairie <dprairie@cisco.com>
Reply-To: dprairie@cisco.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Asking again about draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements
References: <0e8601c80d9b$59115820$5102010a@your029b8cecfe>
In-Reply-To: <0e8601c80d9b$59115820$5102010a@your029b8cecfe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Oct 2007 23:24:58.0089 (UTC) FILETIME=[99D1D590:01C80F82]
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15480.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.315300-8.000000-31
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=682; t=1192490708; x=1193354708; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dprairie@cisco.com; z=From:=20Danny=20Prairie=20<dprairie@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Asking=20again=20about=20draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam -requirements |Sender:=20 |To:=20Adrian=20Farrel=20<adrian@olddog.co.uk>; bh=9phZIkByVy6kvdihXfQ4Fap3NFBPT0p6jg49c+FY+ps=; b=mmFNS6NhE//0NI/wj4bYm8GtbEVlF0brBm7Bp3JBzBJ8sFdRGkwFAY8x0PnpVrVKu/cq/kxA ROqi6eGw+Yo9+Y3O216lh2nOReOjB8lGsgOEeYto7nDGa7SO3QzJRfJd;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=dprairie@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a

In favor.

Regards,

Danny

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email