Re: Continued Poll for Adoption of Ethernet I-Ds

["Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>]

Adrian,

Yes to all.

Cheers,
Andy

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>