RE: WG document status

["Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>]

Hello Gerald,

> Disagree.  As Deborah just said again on Monday, the SONET/SDH label issue
applies to the gen-signaling draft too, where the SDH and SONET labels are
defined.  This comment has been made again.  And again.  And now again.

Not at all, the SDH/SONET labels are NOT defined in the generalized
signaling drafts. Please check the drafts. The whole SDH/SONET, including
the labels, is in the two SDH/SONET drafts, except of course the values of
the LSP Encoding Type that are listed in the generalized signaling draft.

Kind regards,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO [mailto:gash@att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 2:16 PM
To: Kireeti Kompella; Ben Mack-Crane
Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG document status


Kireeti,

> > Regarding the generalized signaling draft, I submitted
> > several comments after the last IETF identifying technical
> > issues

> WG Last Call for this draft is over.  And over.  And over.  It's
> DONE.  Consensus was rather rough.  That's a pity -- it would be
> nice to make everyone happy.

Yes, last call was *declared* over.  But the SDH/SONET issue pertains to
this draft too.  And that comment was made again.  And again.  And again.
And still *not* resolved.

> Right now, the only issue on the signaling front is the SDH/SONET
> label issue.  And that's a _different_ draft.

Disagree.  As Deborah just said again on Monday, the SONET/SDH label issue
applies to the gen-signaling draft too, where the SDH and SONET labels are
defined.  This comment has been made again.  And again.  And now again.

Jerry Ash