The MPLS WG Archive

["Andrew G. Malis" <Andy.Malis@vivacenetworks.com>]

Bert,

Thanks for the clarification.  Just so we're all on the same page, by 
following the flowchart in draft-andersson, it looks like the next step is 
that the SubIP WG chairs and ADs need to review the drafts in order to 
determine whether they wish to request the IESG and IAB to appoint a 
"requirement evaluating working group" to evaluate the charter change 
proposal.  Is that the case?

If so, then please treat this as a request to kick off that review process.

Thanks,
Andy

--------

At 4/8/2003 10:57 PM +0200, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>Andy writes:
> > I would also like to propose two other drafts to become WG documents:
> >
> > draft-yasukawa-mpls-p2mp-requirement-00.txt
> > draft-yasukawa-mpls-rsvp-p2mp-01.txt
> >
> > There was support expressed for these drafts in San Francisco, and the 
> leaf
> > mechanism that George objected to in a previous revision has been removed.
> > It's been already noted that these fit within the general WG
> > charter, although a charter update is necessary in order to create a new
> > work item for these drafts.  It was also discussed in San Francisco
> > (outside the MPLS WG meeting) that these drafts would be a good test case
> > for Kireeti's proposed RSVP(-TE) extension procedures. So I would also 
> like
> > to support the addition of the new work item to the charter.
> >
>I think the discussion was in the SUB-IP Directorate, and the suggestion
>was to test the procedures in document
>     draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
>and so that would be a different process as just proposing that it be
>added to the MPLS WG charter!
>
>Bert
> > Thanks,
> > Andy