Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

From: "AISSAOUI Mustapha" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 06:55:47 -0500

I agree this should be informational. 

Mustapha.
Sent from my Blackberry!

----- Original Message -----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: Shane Amante <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Sent: Fri Mar 23 05:49:55 2007
Subject: Re: draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02

Shane,

I would oppose this as as a standards track document.

IMO it should be informational.

Best regards,

Matthew

             Shane Amante                                                  
             <shane@castlepoin                                             
             t.net>                                                     To 
                                       [email-masked]                      
             21/03/2007 16:27                                           cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       draft-kompella-l2vpn-l2vpn-02       

                                                                           

I was approached by several people outside the hallway just after the
L2VPN WG meeting expressing confusion over a poll in the room about
making this draft a WG document, in particular over the 'Intended
Status' of this WG draft, e.g.: Informational or Standards Track.
Unfortunately, we were abruptly cut off after running over our time at
the end of the meeting, in order so they could convert the room over for
the IETF plenary session, so I didn't have time to clarify it.  So, my
apologies for the confusion.

Let me now ask a hopefully more precise question here: How many people
are in favor of making the aforementioned draft a WG draft *if* the
'Intended Status' is Standards Track?

Thanks,

-shane