Dear WG,
We had so far a few (and positive) feed-backs, it would be nice to
get more feed-back on this (in particular several of the usual
contributors haven't expressed their opinion).
Thanks.
Happy New Year to all of you.
JP.
Begin forwarded message:
From: JP Vasseur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: January 3, 2007 1:12:59 PM EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Dan \(\(Dan\)\) Romascanu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Pce] WG Feed-back required on draft-farrel-pce-
manageability-requirements-02.txt
Dear WG,
The idea of adding a Manageability section to IDs was first
introduced by Adrian and discussed at IETF-65 Dallas March 2006
(for reference, see the WG minutes) since then two revisions of
draft-farrel-pce-manageability-requirements have been published
based on the comments received from members of the PCE WG and OPS ADs.
My recollection of the discussions about this ID is a general good
support from members of the PCE WG and OPS AD (thanks to Dan for
his help). The were some concerns from Lou that have been addressed
in the latest revision of the draft.
Furthermore, there are several IDs in the works for which the
authors agreed to add a manageability section and "experiment" the
process that may have to be tuned as we'll move forward.
Because, this ID does have some implication on (current and future)
PCE WG IDs, I'd welcome feed-back on adopting this ID as a WG
document.
Thanks.
JP.
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
_______________________________________________
Pce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
