RE: Polling for new WG IDs

["Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>]

Hi Folks,

 

I agree with Zafar on this.  No, Yes and Yes.

 

Cheers,

 

Lyndon

---

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:23 PM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Polling for new WG IDs

---

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:23 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Polling for new WG IDs

Hi,

 

As discussed in San Diego, we need to poll for a couple of new WG drafts:

 

1. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-04.txt 

 

No, IMO transferring the ownership and control of an existing and in-use Data Plane connection between the Management Plane and the Control Plane is over-engineering.

 

2. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-02.txt 

 

Yes,  

 

3. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-takeda-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-01.txt 

 

Yes,  

 

Please send yes or no for these IDs.

 

Reasons and opinions are also welcome.

 

Thanks,

Deborah and Adrian