IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN" <julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com> Tue, 16 October 2007 07:53 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 1IhhFM-0007lp-TV for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:53:49 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhhFA-0000Hc-DF for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 03:53:43 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Ihh5r-0009dq-Dg for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:43:59 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.2.1
Received: from [195.101.245.15] (helo=p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com>) id 1Ihh5o-0009c5-MW for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:43:58 +0000
Received: from FTRDMEL2.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.117.153]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:43:52 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Asking again about draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:43:27 +0200
Message-ID: <7DBAFEC6A76F3E42817DF1EBE64CB02604F0EB49@ftrdmel2>
In-Reply-To: <0e8601c80d9b$59115820$5102010a@your029b8cecfe>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Asking again about draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements
Thread-Index: AcgNnJ7CZsT+n0Q2RL2AslLIifS4cwCK0bkA
References: <0e8601c80d9b$59115820$5102010a@your029b8cecfe>
From: MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN <julien.meuric@orange-ftgroup.com>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2007 07:43:52.0051 (UTC) FILETIME=[4BD9F430:01C80FC8]
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1

Hi Adrian.

Yes, I do think it should be adopted.

Julien


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel

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