RE: Polling for new WG IDs

["Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>]

Hi,

 

Thanks to all for responding.

 

On (1), we have reasonable consensus but some concerns on complexity and potential over-engineering. We'll accept as a WG document, but ask the authors (and WG) to take great care to look for simple solutions, and consider that failure cases simply fall back to out-of-service upgrades. Authors, please upload as a WG document. CCAMP, please participate to progress and ensure your concerns are addressed.

 

On (2), we have good consensus to make a WG document. Authors, please upload as a WG document. Also, please work with us (Chairs) and Julien to ensure the positioning is clear.

 

On (3), we have good consensus to make a WG document. Authors, please upload as a WG document.

 

Thanks,

Deborah and Adrian

---

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

 

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