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

[Zhi-Wei Lin <zwlin@lucent.com>]

option 1

Zhi


Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> CCAMP WG members, 
> 
> before we start down another many 100s of emails re-discussing
> the same topic....
> 
> PLEASE express your support for one of the 3 options that Kireeti
> posed to the WG. Don't elaborate... just help the WG chair(s) to
> figure out the (rough) consensus of the WG. The choices formulated
> by Kireeti:
> 
> 
>>So, here we are again, arguing over this.  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!
>>
> 
> Thanks
> Bert, speaking as AD who would like to see the WG take 
>       a decision on this topic.
> 
>