The MPLS WG Archive

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

now kids - stop throwing sand and get out of the sand box

the question of the version of the ID is moot since the discusion
on the content (remember what content is?) has to be done
on the mailing list

Scott

-----
>From owner-mpls@UU.NET  Thu Mar 21 14:28:40 2002
From: Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
To: "'Kireeti Kompella'" <kireeti@juniper.net>
Cc: "'mpls@UU.net'" <mpls@UU.NET>
Subject: RE: MPLS ping draft-03
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:24:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-mpls@UU.NET
Precedence: bulk

since you pay good attention to IETF and MPLS announcements, then why didn't you spot the mistake in the Agenda about your draft?

-Shahram

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 2:16 PM
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'mpls@UU.net'
> Subject: RE: MPLS ping draft-03
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Shahram Davari wrote:
> 
> > There was no announcement on MPLS list about -03 draft, and 
> it was not
> > even shown on the 3 agendas announced, which the last one 
> was just a day
> > before the meeting, and this mistake was not corrected by 
> the authors
> > either.
> 
> I suggest that you subscribe to IETF announce.  There is no need
> for the MPLS list to repeat all draft notices; it makes sense for
> MPLS WG drafts, but for individual submissions, this is a matter of
> convenience (or inconvenience, for those like me who are subscribed
> to IETF announce).
> 
> Kireeti.
>