The MPLS WG Archive

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

Yes, informational seems more in keeping with a requirements draft.

Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se>
To: "MPLS wg" <mpls@UU.NET>; <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; "George Swallow" <swallow@cisco.com>;
"Alex Zinin" <zinin@psg.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:53 PM
Subject: wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-requirement-02.txt


> WG,
>
> this mails initiates a working group last call on
>
> draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-requirement-02.txt
>
> The document has been updated as suggested in Seoul.
>
> Comments to the working group mail list and the working group chairs.
>
> The last call end April 16.
>
> /Loa and George
>
> PS from Loa
>
> I've one immediate point myself, in the header of the document
> says "Standards Track", my take is that it should be "Informational",
> but I'm prepared to hear comments on that also. Becasue of this
> I'm not stting whether the doument is for Standards track or not.
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Loa Andersson
>
> mobile +46 739 81 21 64
>
>
>