[CCAMP] Poll on making draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-03 a WG document

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 29 October 2014 19:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61ADB1A89FC for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.033
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.033 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TF5JcVkD_ZKH for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy4-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.23.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 540DC1A89FF for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 12:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 20160 invoked by uid 0); 29 Oct 2014 19:38:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy4.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 29 Oct 2014 19:38:02 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id 9Ddz1p0032SSUrH01De2Sp; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:38:02 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=b7chvL2x c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=u9EReRu7m0cA:10 a=47y29FthlqAA:10 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=ux_6WKK_zodEigNKwN4A:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=h/RUox/p8Nvg6ERZO4S/avC9htEOyTvMsJsF5PpcDPE=; b=DJkVWuQm+JvWU3dZKmPugTR2A8DfQ6ZzSTTrWfc4BaT8txywcwcF7i+rWCEhdrcStgAOYuAtibjL0cbW67tw2v9mWzb7+ReuGjX75twRGAvnAkWJA/KK/JnU4wSqL21g;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:41965 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1XjZ4B-0003ap-BG for ccamp@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:37:59 -0600
Message-ID: <54514226.6050502@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:38:14 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/TiaJesIwF_NBVtYniGKxDCzdATg
Subject: [CCAMP] Poll on making draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-03 a WG document
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 19:38:11 -0000

All,

This is start of a three week poll on making
draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-resource-sharing-proc-03 a CCAMP working group
document.  The poll duration is extended due to the upcoming meeting.

This is a bit of an atypical adoption call.  We, the chairs, think this
document requires work, but that it has reached the point that changes
should be directed by the WG.  Recall that the individual authors have
already merged this document with
draft-gandhi-ccamp-gmpls-restoration-lsp.  Our questions to the WG are:

1) Do you think the WG should develop an informational document
   explaining how resource sharing works with the existing RSVP-TE
   RFCs/mechanisms?

   Please answer: "yes" or "no", elaborate if you wish.

2) Are you willing to contribute to this work, and if so how?

   Please answer: "no", "reviewer", "contribute text", or
   something else.

3) If you answered yes to #1, do support adoption of this document
   as the basis for the topic?

   Please answer: "yes/support" or "no/do not support".

   If indicating no, please state your objections to the document,
   keeping in mind that we expect the document to be revised as it
   works its way through wg process.  Either way, also please feel
   free to identify changes you'd like to see made post WG adoption.

   Note, objections to the topic are covered under question 1.

The poll ends Wednesday, November 19th.

Thanks,

Deborah and Lou