Re: [Teas] Joint WG last call on draft-ietf-ospf-availability-extension-04

["Acee Lindem (acee)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Amy,
That would be acceptable. However,  it seems that “OSPF-TE Link Availability Extension” would be more accurate.
Thanks,
Acee

From: "Yemin (Amy)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Monday, May 30, 2016 at 5:30 AM
To: Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "CCAMP ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "TEAS WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: RE: [Teas] Joint WG last call on draft-ietf-ospf-availability-extension-04

Hi Acee and Daniele,

I plan to change the title to “OSPF-TE Extension for Links with Variable Discrete Bandwidth”, what do you think?
I will also update the text in the draft accordingly.

BR,
Amy
________________________________
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it!

From: Teas [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 6:10 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee); CCAMP ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>); TEAS WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Joint WG last call on draft-ietf-ospf-availability-extension-04

Good point Acee.

I agree with you I’m fine with updating the ID accordingly.

Thanks
Daniele

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: giovedì 12 maggio 2016 13:42
To: Daniele Ceccarelli; CCAMP ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>); TEAS WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Teas] Joint WG last call on draft-ietf-ospf-availability-extension-04

I realize it has always been this way but the terminology of the draft (including the title) is somewhat misleading as the does not extend the OSPF routing protocol. Rather, it  extends the OSPF GMPLS encodings as defined in RFC 4203.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Teas <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Daniele Ceccarelli <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 4:25 AM
To: "CCAMP ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "TEAS WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [Teas] Joint WG last call on draft-ietf-ospf-availability-extension-04

CCAMP, TEAS,

This starts a two weeks joint working group last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension-04
The last call end on Wednesday May 26th. Please send your comments to both the CCAMP and TEAS mailing lists.

All the IPR declarations from authors and contributors have been collected and can be found in the history of the document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-availability-extension/history/
Please note that no IPR was disclosed against this draft.

As usual this is also a call for shepherd. If anyone is willing to be the shepherd of the document, please volunteer.



Thanks

Daniele, Fatai, Lou, Pavan