[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Polling for new WG IDs

Yes to all three.

Igor

"Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com> wrote:
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

Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.