Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Comment on making draft-boutros-mpls-tp-li-lb an mplswgdraft

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:22:18 +0000

Nurit, hi

(again changing the subject line as requested)

You replied to Greg:

> This is an interesting reference! - although the argument is not backed
> up in any IETF process document (even though said by Luca J). 
> 
> As I recall, Luca's comment was offered in a discussion where it was
> claimed that the solution in draft-bhh is fully baked and
> ready for publication, which is obviously not the case. 

If you read http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731 you
will notice that almost all the words "future" refer to other drafts (i.e.
PW message mapping, Identifiers, linear/ring protection) and not
to provide more details to the tools in this draft.

Even though the draft-boutros does not mention the word future, it refers
also to orther drafts.

Regards, Huub.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:24:10 +0000

Nurit, hi

Even though the draft-boutros does not mention the word future, it refers
also to orther drafts.
So if you think this draft is ready to become WG draft why is draft-bhh not?

Regards, Huub.