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

Re: Support for draft-li-ccamp-gr-description-00.txt as WG I-D?

Hi,
We discussed this on the list before Chicago and raised it during the meeting. There was no objection to adopting the draft.
Authors, please repost the I-D as draft-ietf-ccamp-gr-description-00.txt with no changes except to boilerplate. 

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:19 PM
Subject: Re: Support for draft-li-ccamp-gr-description-00.txt as WG I-D?



I hear no dissent.
We'll float the idea in front of the meeting in Chicago to give one last chance for any complaints and then move forwards immediately after Chicago. 

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> 
To: "Dan Li" <danli@huawei.com>; "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: "Deborah A. Brungard" <dbrungard@att.com>; "Arun Satyanarayana" <asatyana@cisco.com> 
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: Support for draft-li-ccamp-gr-description-00.txt as WG I-D?



Hi,
In Prague we found that there was some support for this work, and no opposition.
There were questions regarding clarifying that the work does not define new process or procedures, but explains how existing procedures (i.e. draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-08.txt) can be applied in a variety of situations. I think that this revision has included this clarification.
There was a request to broaden the draft to cover all scenarios (not just multi-node as before), and this has been done.
There was concern about whether there was "service provider" interest in this work. In fact, several of the hands raised to express interest worked for service providers. But I am not personally convinced that this Informational work needs strong support from that sector. More to the point would be support from the vendors who need to agree how they will operate draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext.
So, I'd like to ask the WG whether there is support to make this I-D a WG draft. 
If we do, I would like to see it complete quite quickly. It would need:
- review by vendors to make sure it is accurate
- a bit more text on security issues

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Li" <danli@huawei.com> 
To: "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: "Deborah A. Brungard" <dbrungard@att.com>; "Farrel, Adrian" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>; "Arun Satyanarayana" <asatyana@cisco.com> 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 2:08 AM
Subject: New draft: draft-li-ccamp-gr-description-00.txt



Dear CCAMPers,

We have published a "new" I-D:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/draft-li-ccamp-gr-description-00.txt
This I-D replaces the previous I-D http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/draft-li-ccamp-multinodes-gr-proc-01.txt. 

According to the discussion in Prague meeting, we have:
1) Changed draft to be Informational. Mainly rewords the draft to make sure that it does not give instructions that could be interpreted as defining the procedures. 2) The title of the I-D has been changed to "Description of the RSVP-TE Graceful Restart Procedures", in order to wide the scope of this I-D to include the single node graceful restart scenario. 

Best regards,
Dan Li