Re: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF

[Eve Varma <evarma@lucent.com>]

Hi Kireeti,

My feedback is support for (1).

Cheers,
   Eve
> 
> Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> snip
> >
> > 
> >  Let's follow the AD's
> > suggestion and look for consensus in the WG.
> >
> > 1) Do you think we should have just a single set of traffic parameters
> >    and label values for SDH, and none for SONET?
> > or
> > 2) Do you think we should have one for SONET and one for SDH, with
> >    the proviso that, if an SDH equivalent is available, one SHOULD
> >    use the SDH equivalent?
> > or
> > 3) Do you think we should have one for SONET and one for SDH, with
> >    the proviso that, if an SDH equivalent is available, one MUST
> >    use the SDH equivalent?
> >
> > (in the above, SHOULD and MUST are to be interpreted as in RFC 2119.)
> >
> > PLEASE respond with just (1), (2) or (3), and avoid long diatribes!
> >
> > Feedback is welcome from *all* those interested in the CCAMP WG.
> > Also, what we are looking for is rough consensus, not votes.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kireeti.