Subject: RE: Drafts update

From: "Naidu, Venkata" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 11:37:53 -0400

All:

  I didn't understand why there is lot of confusion 
  in TE drafts. To sum up...

  OSPF TE Draft is not part of any WG
     draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-04.txt

  ISIS TE Draft is part of ISIS WG
     draft-ietf-isis-traffic-03.txt

  OSPF Diff TE Drafts are going in TE-WG
     draft-ietf-ospf-diff-te-00.txt
     draft-ietf-isis-diff-te-00.txt
  
  OSPF GMPLS are in CCAMP WG
     draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-02.txt

  ISIS GMPLS are in ISIS WG
     draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-03.txt

  I strongly suggest/request, all extensions related to OSPF 
  and ISIS should go to respective (OSPF/ISIS) WGs.
  Because the extensions (TLVs etc) are closely related
  to the protocols (irrespective of the features - TE, 
  Diffserv, GMPLS etc)

--Venkata Naidu

-> presumably because draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-03.txt (note 03, 
-> not 02) is already an ISIS WG document.
-> 
-> -----Original Message-----
-> From: rpapneja [mailto:[email-masked]]
-> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 9:52 AM
-> To: kireeti
-> Cc: rpapneja; ccamp
-> Subject: RE: Drafts update
-> 
-> 
-> Hello Kireeti
->  
->  A correction-
-> 
->  I meant to say why 
-> "draft-ietf-isis-gmpls-extensions-02.txt" did not 
-> make
-> it to the list instead of "draft-ietf-isis-traffic-02.txt".
-> 
->  -Rajiv
-> 
-> On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Rajiv Papneja wrote:
-> 
-> > Hello Kireeti,
-> > 
-> >  Here is my opinion on the list of proposed drafts:
-> >  
-> >  1. draft-dubuc-lmp-mib-02.txt:				
->         {Yes}
-> > 			           (CCAMP WG documnet)	
-> >  2. draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt:  		
-> 	{Wait}
-> >  3. draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-02.txt: 		{Yes}
-> >  4. draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-framework-00.txt - Yes:		{Yes}
-> >  5. 
-> draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt:   {Wait}
-> >  6. draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt:			{Yes}
-> > 
-> >  I was just wondering that why 
-> (draft-ietf-isis-traffic-02.txt) did 
-> not
-> > make it to the list. Thanks.
-> >  
-> >   Regards,
-> >    -Rajiv
-> > 
-> > ********************************
-> > Rajiv Papneja (GRA)
-> > Advanced Internet Laboratory
-> > George Mason University,
-> > G10, Johnson Center,
-> > Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
-> > Tel: 703.993.4703
-> > email: [email-masked]
-> > ********************************
-> > 
-> > 
-> > > -----Original Message-----
-> > > From: [email-masked] 
[mailto:[email-masked]]On
> > Behalf Of Kireeti Kompella
> > Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 5:37 AM
> > To: [email-masked]
> > Subject: Drafts update
> > 
> > 
> > Hi Folks,
> > 
> > Can we get a sense of the consensus whether the following drafts
> > should be made CCAMP WG documents?  Please respond with
> > (a) yes
> > (b) no
> > (c) wait
> > 
> > 1. draft-dubuc-lmp-mib-02.txt
> > 2. draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt
> > 3. draft-kompella-ospf-gmpls-extensions-02.txt
> > 5. draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt
> > 6. draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-routing-00.txt
> > 
> > (Note: for draft-dubuc-lmp-mib-02.txt, the question is, should this
> >  be a WG document, either in MPLS or CCAMP.)
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Kireeti.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

********************************
Rajiv Papneja (GRA)
Advanced Internet Laboratory
George Mason University,
G10, Johnson Center,
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
Tel: 703.993.4703
email: [email-masked]
********************************