RE: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary

["Shah, Himanshu" <hshah at ciena.com>]

My re-vote is identical to what Andy states below
for each question.

I also believe that if for some reasons the WG decides
to proceed with both solutions, then we need to ask
another set of questions wrt co-existence/inter-operability.

/himanshu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> Andrew G. Malis
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:26 PM
> To: Vach Kompella
> Cc: 'pwe3'
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Inter-op is not necessary
> 
> 
> Here is my revote:
> 
> Q1. Are you in favor of moving MS-LDP forward as WG draft?
> A1. Yes, including interoperability with SS-LDP using FEC 128
> 
> Q2. Are you against moving MS-LDP forward?
> A2. No.
> 
> Q3. Are you in favor of moving MS-RSVP forward as WG draft?
> A3. No, unless there is a demonstrated requirement from the SPs that 
> absolutely cannot be satisfied using MS-LDP.
> 
> Q4. Are you against moving MS-RSVP forward?
> A4. Yes (see A3).
> 
> Q5. Are you in favor of a single solution?
> A5. Yes (see A3).
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3