CTG is in the draft name and should be removed before/as the document
becomes a WG document. As you say, this doesn't require a new version,
i.e., John could just ask for the document to be republished as say
something like 'draft-ietf-rtwg-cl-requirements'.
I do think the addition of the G.800 perspective should be added prior
to the document becoming a WG document as it provides formal context for
the WG activity.
On 2/9/2010 10:39 AM, So, Ning wrote:
> Thank you for your comments. Since we do not have any wording of "CTG"
> in the requirement draft (as indicated in your e-mail as well), I assume
> there is nothing needs to be done to your suggestion "a". We are fine
> with your suggestion "b" of referencing G.800 in the draft. It is a
> very minor change, which can be done after it becomes WG draft.
> Ning So
> Lead Engineer
> Enterprise Data Network and Traffic Planning
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
> Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 7:59 AM
> To: John G. Scudder
> Cc: [email protected]; ZININ Alex; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Extended comment period for Composite Link Requirements as
> While there is nothing wrong with standardizing a patented
> per se, given that this work is just at the requirements stage perhaps
> it makes more sense to focus on the requirements of supporting
> 'composite links' as defined in G.800
> (http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.800-200709-I/en). In fact, after giving
> a quick look at the documents, I don't see 'CTG' used or defined
> anywhere in either G.800 or the draft. So perhaps the only needed
> changes are (a) to remove any references to "CTG", including in the name
> and (b) add some text placing the draft/requirements in the context
> G.800 defined composite links.
> Note that my comment has no bearing on the eventual solution selected by
> the WG to support the requirements, which may even be the solution(s)
> covered in the patent applications.
> On 2/9/2010 6:23 AM, John G. Scudder wrote:
>> The call for WG adoption of draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00
> completed some time ago. As a reminder, the original message is
> appended below. However some of you may have noticed that there have
> been a couple of related IPR filings. For this reason we would like to
> briefly extend the period for comment.
>> The IPR filings are:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1260/ "HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,LTD 's
> Statement about IPR related to draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00"
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1256/ "Verizon Patent and Licensing
> Inc.'s Statement about IPR related to
>> If you have any further comments on WG adoption of
> draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00, please send them by February 17.
>>> From: "John G. Scudder" <[email protected]>
>>> Date: November 10, 2009 11:07:36 AM GMT+02:00
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Cc: [email protected], ZININ Alex <[email protected]>
>>> Subject: Composite Link Requirements as WG document
>>> At today's meeting we received a request to adopt
> draft-so-yong-mpls-ctg-requirement-00 as a working group document.
> There was reasonably strong support in the room for doing so. Please
> respond to the mailing list with your discussion, support or opposition
> (please do this even if you did so in person). The deadline for
> comments is November 30.
>>> Note that accepting the document simply means that the working group
> would begin working on requirements. It does not imply blanket
> acceptance of the document as it now stands.
>> rtgwg mailing list
>> [email protected]
> rtgwg mailing list
> [email protected]
rtgwg mailing list