Osama,
sorry our mails crossed each other on the wire. I see your
point, but doi not really understand why you need the actual
code points to reach consensus - as long as you know you will
get them?
But, I will not try to stop publishing the draft - as long as the
note on cr-ldp not scheduled for further development is added.
/Loa
Osama Aboul-Magd wrote:
Hi Adrian,
The ITU is scheduled to consent G.7713.3 by the end of the month. In
order for this to happen we need the IANA code points, and this is the
only purpose of this draft.
I hope now you see the urgency of this draft.
Regards;
Osama Aboul-Magd
ATI Strategic Standards and Protocols
Nortel Networks
P.O. Box 3511, Station C
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1Y-4H7
Tel: +1 613 763 5827
e.mail:osama(_at_)nortelnetworks(_dot_)com
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:afarrel(_at_)movaz(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 12:20 PM
To: Loa Andersson
Cc: iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Aboul-Magd, Osama [CAR:1A00:EXCH];
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: CORRECTION: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to
Informational
> trying to understand what you are saying - it seems like you are
> implying that there is no consensus with in ITU on how to progress
> this, and that therefore would be premature for IETF to publish
> this as an informational RFC. Correct?
I'm not quite saying that.
I am saying that it sounds to me from the discussion that the ITU has
not yet
reached consent. It seemed to me that if the draft is intended to
document the
ITU preferences as informational, it would be as well to wait until the
ITU has
fully signed off. I don't see any rush for this.
> Anyhow - I think it would be appropriate to add a note clarifying that
> IETF will not progress cr-ldp beyond Proposed Standard.
Adrian
--
Loa Andersson
Mobile +46 739 81 21 64
Email loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)se