RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

["Richard Rabbat" <[e-mail]>]

Please see inline.


> 1. Loose Path Re-optimization 
> draft-vasseur-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt
> This draft is stable and has an implementation.
> The work is predominantly pertinent to inter-domain 
> signaling, but could also be used within a domain. The 
> meeting in San Diego reported relatively few as having read 
> the draft, but no objection to it becoming a WG draft.
 
Yes. Though I would like the authors to mention GMPLS and drop the focus on
MPLS since they say in the abstract that this applies to "packet and
non-packet TE LSPs".

> 2. A Transport Network View of LMP 
> draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-02.txt
> There has been a bit of off-list discussion about this draft 
> in which it has become clear that there are definite 
> differences between the ASON and CCAMP uses and views of LMP. 
> This is precisely what the draft is intended to expose. That 
> is, the draft is not intended to unify the views of LMP, but 
> rather to represent the two views within a single document so 
> as to highlight the differences. In San Diego, no-one raised 
> objections to this being a WG draft.

Not sure. Adrian mentioned that this would possibly identify items of work
for ITU and IETF. What is the thinking of the authors about the draft after
the protocol modifications are finished? If the expected outcome is an
alignment of the IETF and ITU views on LMP, then the draft would have served
its purpose and would not need publication as Informational. 

> 3. Graceful restart
> draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-01.txt
> This draft represents a merger of two previous drafts and was 
> created at the specific request of the WG in Seoul. There is 
> some more editorial work to be done on the draft, but the 
> main technical content appears to be stable. In San Diego 
> there was some support and no opposition to this becoming a WG draft.

Yes.

> 4. Inter-domain Framework 
> draft-farrel-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-01.txt
> ** I am principal editor. Please take any issues with this to 
> Kireeti ** This draft provides a framework for the 
> multi-domain solutions work that the WG is chartered to 
> address. In San Diego there were some questions about whether 
> the draft should be extended to cover other, more complex, 
> inter-domain functions. There was no conclusion about whether 
> this should be done before or after becoming a WG draft (if 
> it should be done at all).

Yes.