Subject: Re: WG drafts - My correction

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:37:37 +0100

hi adrian - two points here below

"Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Sent by: [email-masked]
03/23/2005 00:16 GMT
Please respond to "Adrian Farrel"

To: <[email-masked]>
cc:
bcc:
Subject: WG drafts - My correction

Thanks to those of you who pointed out my mistake on and off the list.

To set things straight...

1. We have already accepted draft-ayyangar-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te as a
WG draft and it has been published as
draft-ietf-ccamp-inter-domain-rsvp-te

2. I have seen consensus for draft-ayyangar-ccamp-lsp-stitching to be
published as a WG draft and the authors will submit it as
draft-ietf-ccamp-lsp-stitching soon

-> agreed - note: would you tell us (or authors) when comments made on this list would then be incorporated ?

3. The name of the third draft is
draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-domain-pd-path-comp. This is the draft that we
need to consider.

As JP says, he plans to add the sentence "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" to this draft.

-> reading through the document and taking section 4 as the core, i wonder why examples of the same section are prescriptive ? is there by no means a way to re-write this document in prescriptive mode (since afaik this is intended to become a proposed standard and not an informational document) and only give examples in appendix and not use examples to describe its core content -

Question: With the addition of this sentence, are we content to accept
this draft as a WG draft?

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Arthi Ayyangar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:08:13 -0800 (PST)

Dimitri,

> this list would then be incorporated ?
-------> I think the plan was to first republish as WG draft with *no*
changes. Following that, we could submit another version shortly incorporating
the comments made on the list.

thanks,
-arthi

> -> reading through the document and taking section 4 as the core, i
> wonder why examples of the same section are prescriptive ? is there by no
> means a way to re-write this document in prescriptive mode (since afaik
> this is intended to become a proposed standard and not an informational
> document) and only give examples in appendix and not use examples to
> describe its core content -
>
>