Ah, my language in the original e-mail be would incorrect. I was viewing this as "Is this something ALTO can do easily so they may not have to". The cost maps certainly make this easy if we can support the hierarchy in some network map
Lyle On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Vijay K. Gurbani < [email protected]> wrote: > On 07/18/2016 03:56 AM, Lyle Bertz wrote: > >> All, >> >> Am I off track here or can ALTO pick this up rather easily? >> >> Link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cai-nfvrg-recursive-monitor-00 >> > > Hmmm ... speaking as 1/2 the chair of course, there is certainly no > charter item against which ALTO can adopt this draft. Process-wise, I > don't know off hand whether a WG can add a new deliverable without > re-chartering. > > But the broader question is what prompted you to correlate the draft > with ALTO. I could be missing something here, of course, but my quick > scanning of the draft seems that it is a bit orthogonal to ALTO. But > as I said ... I may be missing something important. > > - vijay > -- > Vijay K. Gurbani, Bell Laboratories, Nokia Networks > 1960 Lucent Lane, Rm. 9C-533, Naperville, Illinois 60563 (USA) > Email: [email protected] / [email protected] > Web: http://ect.bell-labs.com/who/vkg/ | Calendar: http://goo.gl/x3Ogq >
_______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
