Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

[dimitri papadimitriou <[e-mail]>]

zafar,

the point has been already asked during the meeting, to summarize, the 
basic idea:

- is to have a "decoder ring" for understanding ITU work and IETF work
   (-> for publication as informational RFC only)

- is NOT to define anything in this document as the intention is first
   to understand the two groups work efforts and then do a series of
   liaisons to determine/assess if any additional work is needed

hope this clarifies,

thanks,
- dimitri.

---
zafar ali wrote:

> "yes" to (1), (3) and (4), 
> 
> Conditional "yes" to draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-02.txt, depending
> on the answer to the following: 
> 
> Does Author plan to address link management solution space between ASON and
> GMPLS in the same document? I would prefer that and in which case I think
> adaptation of this document as a WG document to be deferred to a later
> point.   
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regards... Zafar
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [e-mail] 
>>[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:52 AM
>>To: [e-mail]
>>Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Tove Madsen
>>Subject: 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).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
>