Hi,We have seen some good support for these I-Ds and no objections, but I don't think we have seen anything like the level of support that was evident in the room in Philadelphia. We haven't seen support from more than half of the authors of the documents.
So, please, if you haven't already done so, give an indication of whether or not you support each of these four documents becoming working group drafts. Remember, you can be in favor of some and not other if you like.
Thanks, Adrian----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 9:23 PM Subject: Polling for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds
Hi,From Philadelphia, we have four candidate I-Ds for adoption as CCAMP working group documents.Please express your opinions.Note that acceptance of these I-Ds does not mean that the discussion about the architecture is done. I think we made some progress on that topic in Philadelphia, and I think the authors took on the task of making some updates of semantics and for clarity, but I expect the discussion may go on for a while.draft-imajuku-ccamp-ethernet-gmpls-req-01.txt draft-fedyk-gmpls-ethernet-pbb-te-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-mef-uni-02.txt draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-ether-svcs-01.txt Thanks, Adrian