RE: Support for draft-li-ccamp-gr-description-00.txt as WG I-D?

[Young Lee <[e-mail]>]

Yes, I support this draft. 

Young

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:41 AM
To: Dan Li; ccamp
Cc: Deborah A. Brungard; Arun Satyanarayana
Subject: Support for draft-li-ccamp-gr-description-00.txt as WG I-D?

Hi,

In Prague we found that there was some support for this work, and no 
opposition.

There were questions regarding clarifying that the work does not define new 
process or procedures, but explains how existing procedures (i.e. 
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-08.txt) can be applied in a variety of 
situations. I think that this revision has included this clarification.

There was a request to broaden the draft to cover all scenarios (not just 
multi-node as before), and this has been done.

There was concern about whether there was "service provider" interest in 
this work. In fact, several of the hands raised to express interest worked 
for service providers. But I am not personally convinced that this 
Informational work needs strong support from that sector. More to the point 
would be support from the vendors who need to agree how they will operate 
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext.

So, I'd like to ask the WG whether there is support to make this I-D a WG 
draft.
If we do, I would like to see it complete quite quickly. It would need:
- review by vendors to make sure it is accurate
- a bit more text on security issues

Thanks,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Li" <[e-mail]>
To: "ccamp" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Deborah A. Brungard" <[e-mail]>; "Farrel, Adrian" 
<[e-mail]>; "Arun Satyanarayana" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:08 AM
Subject: New draft: draft-li-ccamp-gr-description-00.txt


> Dear CCAMPers,
>
> We have published a "new" I-D:
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/draft-li-ccamp-gr-description-00.txt
>
> This I-D replaces the previous I-D 
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-01.txt.
>
> According to the discussion in Prague meeting, we have:
> 1) Changed draft to be Informational. Mainly rewords the draft to make 
> sure that it does not give instructions that could be interpreted as 
> defining the procedures.
> 2) The title of the I-D has been changed to "Description of the RSVP-TE 
> Graceful Restart Procedures", in order to wide the scope of this I-D to 
> include the single node graceful restart scenario.
>
> Best regards,
> Dan Li