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

Re: Polling for new WG IDs

I agree with you that the issue is very important. I can understand that router vendors who don't use a management plane think it may be over-engineering. we may also need to engage with TMF early on in the process.
Richard.

On 12/4/06, Attila Takacs (IJ/ETH) <Attila.Takacs@ericsson.com> wrote:
Yes to: 1. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-04.txt
It is important to address this issue for management plane / control plane coexistence.
Regards,
Attila

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 10:23 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
 
2. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-02.txt
 
3. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-takeda-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-01.txt
 
Please send yes or no for these IDs.
 
Reasons and opinions are also welcome.
 
Thanks,
Deborah and Adrian