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

[Arun Satyanarayana <[e-mail]>]

I support this I-D as a WG doc.

(am a co-author).

Thanks,
Arun
==============================================================
Adrian Farrel wrote:

> 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 
>