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

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

I support this view.  However, I do draw a distinction between a cnls server
layer of IP and co pkt-sw server layer of MPLS.  I see no point in
elaborating on this further, save to point out the rather obvious fact that
if they had not the potential to provide different capabilities then one
would not need both would one?

regards, Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amnon Ilan [mailto:ailan@mrv.com]
> Sent: 16 June 2003 09:31
> To: pwe3@ietf.org; danny@tcb.net
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-vainshtein-cesopsn-06.txt
> 
> 
> Danny,
> 
> I'm against adopting the CESoPSN draft. I also prefer the 
> TDMoIP draft.
> Mainly because it is based on VoATM standards:
> 1. proven technology.
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3