Subject: Re: about draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-00.txt

From: Danny McPherson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:58:17 -0600

Being that this draft is a superset of the draft-martini-frame 
draft, do folks have a problem with adopting it as a WG document
and developing it for the FR solution?

-danny

> draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-00.txt is contained in
> draft-kamapabhava-fr-pwe3.01 which was revised by taking into account the
> comments made during the last few month on the initial version of the draft.
> 
> 
> I would like to suggest that we focus on draft-kamapabhava-fr-pwe3.01 to
> improve it and to address what is missing or need to change so that we can
> produce a new more complete version, hopefully a Working Group draft, before
> the next IETF meeting.
> 
> Can we have agreement on this suggestion?

---

From: "Claude Kawa"<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:39:49 -0400

we will  completedraft kama...-01 on IP as per previous suggestion. I was
too busy today to reply to all my email. I will reply a little bit later
about the suggestions made.

claude 

-----Original Message-----
From: Lloyd Wood [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 2:57 PM
To: Danny McPherson
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [PWE3] about draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-00.txt 

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Danny McPherson wrote:

> draft,

without mentioning the martini control word?

> do folks have a problem with adopting it as a WG document

draft-martini-frame-encap-mpls-00.txt claims to be for both MPLS and
IP (well, its title does, anyway - how it's carried over IP is
unspecified there) and presumably suggests the control word for both,
which draft-kamapabhava-fr-pwe3-01.txt doesn't - so I really don't see
how kamapabhava can be a superset of martini-frame-encap, unless
one of the (To be completed) sections is very _inclusive_. Very
different things. So, given I have a problem with the assertion, I
have a problem with the adoption.

I suppose I'd better mention draft-bryant-pwe3-fr-encap-01.txt - a
third frame-relay draft, a third (disjoint, if I read the list of
names right) set of authors, and some probably useful pieces that
complement the many (To be completed) parts of kama-01 nicely, like a
security section - but not issued on 15 April.

IMO there's certainly enough material between the the three to begin
to coalesce an FR draft the WG can reach consensus on and adopt, and
have fit neatly into the overall architecture/layering model (draft).
But I'd like to hear opinions from the other 17-or-so FR draft authors
first before adopting any one by fiat - and before we've fully
explored FR fragmentation, yet.

cheers,

L.

this (to be completed) sig is a superset of all known signatures.
take that, kibo.

> > Can we have agreement on this suggestion?

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3