> -----Original Message----- > From: Lou Berger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 6:31 PM > To: Zafar Ali (zali) > Cc: Adrian Farrel; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Pce] Poll on three new working group I-Ds > > At 05:30 PM 7/20/2006, Zafar Ali \(zali\) wrote: > > >I would like to wait to include details of policy. > > Zafar, > I'm not sure what you're saying we should wait for. > The details of the policy framework are completely documented > as published. The next step in details (PC Policy > Information Model) is not part of the framework and, as > presented to the WG, belongs in a new/separate draft. What > was discussed is the possibility of adding a new usage > scenario to the framework, but this would simply be an > informative section describing a potential use of PCE policy. > Additionally, based on the WG discussion and as the text > describing the scenario does not yet exist, it isn't clear if > there is consensus that this scenario is valid.
Lou, Thanks for your explanation on the scope and next steps for this document. Based on this action plan, I am ok w/ this ID becoming a WG doc. Thanks Regards... Zafar > So again, > I'm not sure what you'd like to wait for... > > Lou > _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
