The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
Kireeti, There's always been a few things that I didn't like about G.709, so maybe we can just go ahead and deprecate them in CCAMP. Then we can figure this liason stuff and tell the ITU about it. Thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:04 PM > To: Stephen Trowbridge > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET > Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt > > > Hi Steve, > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Stephen Trowbridge wrote: > > > If they decide not to be involved and the other SDO goes ahead with > > developing their own solution, they don't need to bless the > extension, > > or even like it, but they do need to accept it. > > Going back to the examples that Deborah brought up: what if other SDOs > produced variants of SDH -- would you say that the ITU "do need to > accept it"? > > Kireeti. >
|
|