Subject: Fwd: Opinion on two new WG drafts (CORRECTION)

From: JP Vasseur <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:08:27 -0500

I just had a brief discussion with Adrian. As requested per Kireeti I 
will add the following sentence to 
draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp: "In the context of this 
draft, the node in charge of any ERO expansion within its domain is 
always along the inter-domain TE LSP path". Then the question for the 
WG should read:

Is the WG in favor of adopting 
draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp as a WG document (yes/no) 
?

thanks.

JP.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
> Date: March 18, 2005 3:04:51 PM EST
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Opinion on two new WG drafts
> Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
>
> Our charter encourages us to work on inter-domain solutions.
> There are two drafts which we should consider as working group drafts:
> - draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-path-comp-00.txt
> - draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-02.txt
>
> In Minneapolis the room seemed to be in favor with two caveats:
> - draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-path-comp must include a
>   statement clarifying that in the context of this draft, the node in
>   charge of any ERO expansion within its domain is always along
>   the inter-domain TE LSP path
> - draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te-02.txt must wait
>    for draft-ayyangar-ccamp-lsp-stitching-00.txt to become a
>    CCAMP draft
>
> Assuming these requirements to be fulfilled, please say whether you
> support these drafts becoming CCAMP drafts. A simple yes/no is enough, 
> but
> reasons against are useful.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>