Yes to both. Andrew
> -----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? > > 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? > > 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
