should I hold off on updating the CL framework draft?
Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com> Wed, 20 June 2012 19:16 UTC
Return-Path: <curtis@occnc.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FEB21F8573 for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:16:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.063
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.063 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.537, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id icaJ3E2w2HkM for <rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gateway.ipv6.occnc.com (gateway.ipv6.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1545::1:132]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7501B21F8564 for <rtgwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from newharbor.ipv6.occnc.com (newharbor.ipv6.occnc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1545::1:320]) (authenticated bits=0) by gateway.ipv6.occnc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5KJGiCL081261; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:16:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from curtis@occnc.com)
Message-Id: <201206201916.q5KJGiCL081261@gateway.ipv6.occnc.com>
To: RTGWG <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: should I hold off on updating the CL framework draft?
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@occnc.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 15:16:44 -0400
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: curtis@occnc.com
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtgwg>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 19:16:49 -0000
RTGWG, We are in a poll on "Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS)", aka the CL Framework (currently draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework-05, would be updated to -06). Are there any objections from the WG to updating the CL framework from the current -05 version to an -06 version to reflect the discussion on the WG mailing list and making those updates during the poll? BTW- Primary participants in the WG mailing list discussion were Iftekhar Hussain, Lucy Yong, and myself. Kireeti Kompella made comments in response to Iftekhar, but regarding requirements implied by the CL Framework. Curtis
- should I hold off on updating the CL framework dr… Curtis Villamizar