Re: Future of the GELS mailing list

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

i can have different interpretations on why people are asking to shutdown 
the GELS list (so let's try one that goes beyond mailing list duplication 
which is oversimplistic)

shutting down the list means that -de facto- agreement that this effort is 
committed and to be chartered as a control plane only work item @CCAMP 
with data plane "solutions" sitting outside IETF scope

is my interpretation correct ?

if yes - GELS mailing can be shut down -

if not - it means we don't have agreement to continue this work either 
within GELS, CCAMP or whatsover

let's have the real discussion.





Monique Morrow <mmorrow@cisco.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
11/07/2006 11:34
 
        To:     Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
        cc:     <gels@rtg.ietf.org>
        Subject:        Re: Future of the GELS mailing list


Agree with shutting down the GELS list.

/m


On 10/7/06 7:35 pm, "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> We reached a sort-of decision in CCAMP today on the future of GELS. You 
can
> see this on the chairs slides at
> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06jul/slides/ccamp-15.ppt#286,8,GELS?
> 
> One question remains.
> Should the GELS mailing list continue or should all discussions move to 
the
> CCAMP list?
> 
> I am personally inclined to think that the separate list is a useful 
venue
> for discussions that might not be completely dedicated to GMPLS protocol
> issues. On the other hand, maybe the WG would like all discussions in 
the
> same place.
> 
> I would prefer that we stopped copying emails to both lists.
> 
> Opinions?
> Adrian 
>