[L2tpext] [new WG item?] draft-nmcgill-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions

Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@alcatel-lucent.com> Tue, 05 August 2008 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: l2tpext-archive-1@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-l2tpext-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F98F28C327; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: l2tpext@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: l2tpext@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54EA28C321 for <l2tpext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L7cVOyOQXFbl for <l2tpext@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE44828C327 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (h135-1-218-53.lucent.com [135.1.218.53]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id m75InWnc024853 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:49:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from cliff.eng.ascend.com (cliff.eng.ascend.com [135.140.53.169]) by ihrh1.emsr.lucent.com (8.13.8/emsr) with ESMTP id m75InRX4001609 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 13:49:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from igoyret-c1.alcatel-lucent.com (dhcp-135-140-27-199 [135.140.27.199]) by cliff.eng.ascend.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m75InPut012671 for <l2tpext@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:49:27 -0700
Message-Id: <200808051849.m75InPut012671@cliff.eng.ascend.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:49:22 -0700
To: l2tpext@ietf.org
From: Ignacio Goyret <igoyret@alcatel-lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
Subject: [L2tpext] [new WG item?] draft-nmcgill-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions
X-BeenThere: l2tpext@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Layer Two Tunneling Protocol Extensions <l2tpext.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/l2tpext>
List-Post: <mailto:l2tpext@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext>, <mailto:l2tpext-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: l2tpext-bounces@ietf.org

Hi all,
The authors of this draft have asked the WG to consider adopting it
as a WG work item.

The draft can be viewed here: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nmcgill-l2tpext-circuit-status-extensions-01


The draft defines new bits (and deprecates the usage of the "New-bit")
for the Circuit Status AVP. The newly defined bits provide more granular
active/inactive signaling.

An RFC is needed to assign these bits in IANA (IETF Consensus policy),
thus the request to adopt the draft.

Group, I need to hear from other people besides me and the authors.
A short "accept" or "deny" email is sufficient. You can send your vote
on accepting this draft as a WG work item to the list or to me directly.

Send your response before Monday, August/11.

Note that an "accept" vote does NOT mean that the draft will be
published as is. Like any other draft, it will go through the usual
period of comments and reviews, WGLC, LC, etc. etc.

Thanks,
-Ignacio

_______________________________________________
L2tpext mailing list
L2tpext@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/l2tpext