Re: [mpls] One week poll on Loss / Delay drafts

Yes, Support
BR,
Venkat.
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Scott Mansfield <
scott.mansfield@ericsson.com> wrote:

>  Yes, Support
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] *On
> Behalf Of *George Swallow
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:54 PM
> *To:* mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [mpls-tp] One week poll on Loss / Delay drafts
>
>   Folks -
>
> We have had a number of requests to extend draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay to
> cover more general MPLS applications.  In discussions among the authors and
> co-chairs, we believe that it would be less confusing to all involved to
> split the document into two.
> One called draft-ietf-mpls-loss-delay which covers all of the mechanisms
> and one called draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile.
>
> Dan Frost has been kind enough to submit both of these proposed workgroup
> documents as
> draft-frpst-mpls-loss-delay and draft-frost-mpls-tp-loss-delay-profile.
>
> This begins a one week poll to accept both of these drafts as workgroup
> drafts.
>
> A yes vote is to adopt these two drafts and terminate work on
> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay.
>
> A no vote would result in the additional MPLS related content being added
> to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-loss-delay.
>
> The poll ends December 22 at 24:00 UTC.
>
> George and Loa
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
>

-- 
Best Regards,
Venkatesan Mahalingam.