Re: [PWE3] VCCV2

I agree with Shahram and prefer option 'C' as well.
Detailed document can come later, but having a clear outline/summary of the options and their usage will help implementations, more importantly, removes the confusion.

Cheers
Sam

Sent from my iPad

On Aug 27, 2012, at 11:02 AM, "Shahram Davari" <davari@broadcom.com> wrote:

> Hi Yaakov,
>  
> I prefer C, since people are developing products and C is the fastest way to guide the industry.
>  
> Thanks
> Shahram
>  
> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yaakov Stein
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 5:00 AM
> To: pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> Cc: pwe3 (pwe3@ietf.org)
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] VCCV2
>  
> PWE chairs,
>  
> At the meeting Tom and I asked whether the WG wanted a quick update document,
> or whether a full rewrite of all the VCCV RFCs was desired.
>  
> Stewart suggested that we first do a quick update and thereafter a "tutorial".
>  
> To a quick poll at the meeting there was (in the words of the minutes) an underwhelming response.
> My own email to the list elicited only three responses.
>  
> Could you ask for people to express their opinions ?
> (A – quick doc   B – full doc   C – A and then possibly B later on)
>  
> (I guess we have heard from Stewart in favor of C, and Greg M, Dave A, and Mach C in favor of B.
>  I personally like C too.).
>  
> Y(J)S
>  
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3