Adrian, et al,
Please see responses in line below (short answer, yes and yes)...
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
--> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 11:14 AM
--> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--> Subject: [Pce] Working group next steps for protocols
-->
--> Hi,
-->
--> Following up from the Vancouver meeting (per the meeting
--> report) I would like your opinion on the following actions.
-->
--> 1. Discovery solutions work.
--> The meeting had good support for adopting
--> draft-leroux-pce-disco-proto-igp-00.txt as a Working Group
--> draft to provide IGP-based solutions for PCE discovery.
-->
--> What is your opinion on this becoming a WG draft?
It should become a WG draft.
-->
--> 2. PCE Communications Protocol
--> The Vancouver meeting discussed both the process of
--> selecting a PCECP and the candidate protocol (PCEP)
--> described in draft-vasseur-pce-pcep-02.txt.
--> The mood of the meeting was that PCEP should be worked on
--> within the working group, and there was no objection to
--> this becoming a WG draft.
-->
--> What is your opinion on this becoming a WG draft?
It should become a WG draft.
-->
--> Thanks,
--> Adrian
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Pce mailing list
--> [email protected]
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
-->
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
