IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com> Tue, 16 October 2007 12:09 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 1IhlEk-0006Ri-IZ for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:09:26 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IhlEk-0000Om-7S for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:09:26 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.67 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Ihkzd-0007Bh-N0 for ccamp-data@psg.com; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:53:49 +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=AWL,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 <jvasseur@cisco.com>) id 1Ihkzb-0007BB-2w for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:53:48 +0000
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.21,283,1188802800"; d="scan'208";a="237850818"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Oct 2007 04:53:46 -0700
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l9GBrkC4000781; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:53:46 -0700
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l9GBrhsb005078; Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:53:46 GMT
Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:53:43 -0400
Received: from [192.168.48.131] ([10.86.240.47]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:53:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <0e8601c80d9b$59115820$5102010a@your029b8cecfe>
References: <0e8601c80d9b$59115820$5102010a@your029b8cecfe>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
X-Priority: 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <9ABD5834-45E9-455C-8535-D11129AEDDA8@cisco.com>
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: JP Vasseur <jvasseur@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Asking again about draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:52:36 +0200
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2007 11:53:43.0254 (UTC) FILETIME=[334DFF60:01C80FEB]
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15486.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--11.609900-8.000000-31
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=702; t=1192535626; x=1193399626; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jvasseur@cisco.com; z=From:=20JP=20Vasseur=20<jvasseur@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Asking=20again=20about=20draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam -requirements |Sender:=20; bh=FqzeKua45nu3G358CcA4bNi/jpD2/WrYkl4I5NZ7C0I=; b=QNqUNCh4h5MCGAZa1JHDbVOUj50e/VlQLgQhqnIi0VAZwOc4A/Guorf4k6u2ReYZXU9R1icO 5FSZKlNJSIO/BKO2dokYpR9mbNdCjp4o1QA3Jr7Ln3J1q5lLlRtPdgbn;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=jvasseur@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22

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