IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Monique Morrow <mmorrow@cisco.com> Tue, 16 October 2007 18:14 UTC

Return-path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhqwR-000121-LT for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:14:55 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhqwQ-0007Ma-EP for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:14:55 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1IhqlH-000KLw-1y for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:03:23 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.1
Received: from [144.254.224.140] (helo=ams-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <mmorrow@cisco.com>) id 1IhqlE-000KLe-Kj for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:03:21 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,284,1188770400"; d="scan'208";a="155894757"
Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2007 20:03:19 +0200
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l9GI3Jpo023513; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:03:19 +0200
Received: from xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-332.cisco.com [144.254.231.87]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l9GI2xUv006940; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:03:16 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-33a.cisco.com ([144.254.231.85]) by xbh-ams-332.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:03:06 +0200
Received: from 10.21.85.2 ([10.21.85.2]) by xmb-ams-33a.emea.cisco.com ([144.254.231.85]) via Exchange Front-End Server email.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:03:05 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:52:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Asking again about draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements
From: Monique Morrow <mmorrow@cisco.com>
To: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Message-ID: <C33A485D.51F16%mmorrow@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: Asking again about draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements
Thread-Index: AcgQHUgchtxN0HwQEdy3mgAX8tV3kA==
In-Reply-To: <9ABD5834-45E9-455C-8535-D11129AEDDA8@cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2007 18:03:06.0094 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD6300E0:01C8101E]
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15486.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.151900-8.000000-31
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=828; t=1192557799; x=1193421799; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mmorrow@cisco.com; z=From:=20Monique=20Morrow=20<mmorrow@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Asking=20again=20about=20draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam -requirements |Sender:=20; bh=eVYpUHwVcPw9h3l8vPmRn9DGZoJCByeveMte+djBMbI=; b=KkWcSaMy/2pUvqIyfWIecNh2OpJ93LgNGjW0pT/j3tHRP5a6W0qrqQ0lcTjefjcDwLi7Z2mQ rfWipfFbknvg95brkuRNC5BC1rxL1m3nz4alL26m4SJraMbYTqkz5awj;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=mmorrow@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17

Also in favor

/monique


On 10/16/07 4:52 AM, "JP Vasseur" <jvasseur@cisco.com> wrote:

> in favor.
> 
> JP.
> 
> On Oct 13, 2007, at 3:16 PM, 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