Re: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document

Hi all,

This draft just introduces a new Association Type, so do we really need one more separate draft for this simple thing?

In Prague meeting, we know that there was a consensus on [draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-01.txt] to separate it into two drafts: 
(1)Usage of The RSVP Association Object
(2)RSVP Association Object Extensions

So, I think it is appropriate to address MPLS-TP bidirectional LSP association in the draft (2), because we know that one of the key drivers for Association Object Extensions in [draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-info-01] is for MPLS-TP.

In this way, we can just keep two drafts for the association stuff (besides RFC4872 and RFC4873), one is "informational usage for GMPLS recovery", another one is for "Standards track extensions for non-GMPLS recovery usage and Extended association". Another benefit  of this approach is very easy for the readers to track and review the RFCs.

Thanks

Fatai

Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
Huawei Base, Bantian, Longgang,
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Tel: +86-755-28972912
Fax: +86-755-28972935

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>
To: <ccamp@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 5:24 PM
Subject: [CCAMP] poll on makingdraft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a WG document

> All,
> 
> This is to start a two week poll on making
> draft-zhang-mpls-tp-rsvpte-ext-associated-lsp-04 a ccamp working
> group document. Please send mail to the list indicating "yes/support"
> or "no/do not support".  If indicating no, please state your technical
> reservations with the document.
> 
> The poll ends Friday April 15.
> 
> Much thanks,
> Lou (and Deborah)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>