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

[Jennifer Yates <jyates@research.att.com>]

My vote is for (1).

Jen

"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.