Re: [Tsvwg] DRAFT Minutes from TSVWG Dublin (IETF72)

[<[e-mail]>]

I think this should be adopted. Without this it makes the encoding of PCN information much harder...
 
Toby

________________________________

From: [e-mail] on behalf of James M. Polk
Sent: Tue 29/07/2008 13:43
To: ken carlberg; Livingood, Jason
Cc: tsvwg
Subject: Re: [Tsvwg] DRAFT Minutes from TSVWG Dublin (IETF72)



At 02:58 AM 7/29/2008, ken carlberg wrote:
>if I heard correctly, it was agreed (mumbled :-) to take the
>discussion onto the list

this is correct, mostly because not enough folks admitted they had
read it (by not raising their hands when asked "who read this ID") to
give an informed opinion one way or the other.

I will clarify this in the notes

that said, do folks feel strongly that this ID should be a TSVWG item?

James
TSVWG co-chair


>-ken
>
>
>On Jul 28, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>
>>I read the section on Bob's draft (draft-briscoe-tsvwg-ecn-tunnel-01)
>>but it was not clear to me either in the meeting (hard to hear mid-way
>>back) or in the notes whether the WG decided to proceed with the I-D
>>as
>>a WG item.
>>
>>My two cents on the issue is that it seems like a worthwhile I-D for
>>the
>>WG.
>>
>>Jason
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>On Behalf Of James M. Polk
>>>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:32 PM
>>>To: tsvwg
>>>Subject: [Tsvwg] DRAFT Minutes from TSVWG Dublin (IETF72)
>>>
>>>Please comment about accuracy
>>>
>>>http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/minutes/tsvwg.txt
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>James
>>>IETF TSVWG co-chair
>>>
>>>              ***********************************
>>>     "It should NEVER be inconvenient to do the right thing"
>>>
>>>