RE : Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

["LE ROUX Jean-Louis RD-CORE-LAN" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian and all,

I support the adoption of these 4 drafts as WG doc.

Regards,

JL

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [e-mail] 
>[mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Adrian Farrel
>Envoyé : mardi 10 août 2004 14:52
>À : [e-mail]
>Cc : 'Kireeti Kompella'; Tove Madsen
>Objet : Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status
>
>
>Hi,
>
>In San Diego we had four drafts for immediate consideration as 
>working group drafts. (There were a few other drafts that 
>needed a little attention first, but will come up for 
>consideration in the near future.)
>
>Please send your comments to the list or to the chairs. A 
>brief "yes" or "no" will suffice, but a reason with any "no" 
>would be helpful.
>
>Thanks,
>Adrian
>
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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).
>
>
>
>
>
>