Subject: RE: draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

From: "Nurit Sprecher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:08:50 +0200

Hi Andy,

The requirement draft has been already accepted as WG document. I think
that once we accepted the requirement draft as a WG document we have a
strong idea on the requirements for MS PWs and specifically for TE MS
PWs. 

In such a stage, I think it is already sensible to start working on the
solution.

Best regards,

Nurit.

  _____  

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 12:12 AM
To: Florin Balus
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [PWE3] draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

I agree with Florin and others that it's premature for this (or any of
the other proposed solution drafts) to be a WG draft.  Let's

1. Update the charter so we can even discuss MH PWs
2. Adopt the requirements draft
3. Get closure on the requirements
4. THEN, we can evaluate the proposed solution drafts to see how they
match up against the requirements to decide which will be adopted by the
WG

What a concept ... have some requirements before we do the protocol
design ....

Cheers,
Andy

-----------

At 3/23/2005 12:49 -0500, Florin Balus wrote:

I am on the same page: i.e. let's have another round of discussions on
the requirements for MH PWs so that we get the right perspective on the
solution space.

At this time I oppose making this a WG draft. 

Florin 

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3