[PWE3] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-vainshtein-cesopsn-06.txt

["Amnon Ilan" <ailan@mrv.com>]

Danny,

I'm against adopting the CESoPSN draft. I support the TDMoIP draft
Mainly because it is based on VoATM standards:
1. proven technology (AAL1, AAl2 and TDMoIP itself).
2. easier market acceptance.
3. easier acceptance by other bodies (ITU, MPLS-Forum) and higher
   chance for compatible standards.
To add on Shahram's view: I think the support for AAL2 is also very
important for future acceptence and interworking with VoATM, 3G etc.

Regards,
Amnon.

>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
>Danny,
>
>I think my view is known. I prefer the Anavi draft (aka TDMoIP), due to its
usage
>of a known and proven technology (i.e, AAL1) and its ease of interworking
with
>ATM CES.
>
>Yours,
>-Shahram
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Danny McPherson [mailto:danny@tcb.net]
>Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:57 PM
>To: Sasha Vainshtein; Stewart Bryant (E-mail); PWE3 WG (E-mail)
>Cc: Israel Sasson; Akiva Sadovski; Eduard Metz (E-mail); Tim Frost
>(E-mail); Prayson Pate (E-mail)
>Subject: [PWE3] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-vainshtein-cesopsn-06.txt
>
>
>If there are other folks that would like to see this document
>become a WG
>item please speak up now.
>
>-danny
>
>On 6/10/03 10:12 AM, "Sasha Vainshtein" <Sasha@AXERRA.com> wrote:
>
>> Stewart, Danny and all,
>> As (some of) you have probably noticed I have posted an
>> updated (-06) revision of the CESoPSN draft.
>>
>> I would like to ask the WG to adopt this draft as a WG item,
>> and this message is intended to initiate a TECHNICAL discussion
>> on this subject.
>
>_______________________________________________
>pwe3 mailing list
>pwe3@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3





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