I would strongly recommend reading at least the substantially extended and improved Composite Link Framework draft. We do not have a lot of time in our agenda to discuss the composite-link work - so informed discussion on the list and in our meeting would be quite useful.
Speaking personally, I found that the new version addresses my concerns about translating the requirements into details of existing technology, needed extensions, and trade-offs. The WG has been waiting on draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement until there was a framework draft that was sufficiently mature. I would also recommend reading the new draft-symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases. Thanks, Alia On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Curtis Villamizar <[email protected]> wrote: > > The Composite Link Framework 05 draft has been submitted. > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework/ > > It is very substantially changed from prior versions. > > The following three documents are related to Composite Link: > > Requirements for MPLS Over a Composite Link > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-cl-requirement/ > > Composite Link USe Cases and Design Considerations > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-symmvo-rtgwg-cl-use-cases/ > > Composite Link Framework in Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-so-yong-rtgwg-cl-framework/ > > The first is a WG document. We would the WG to consider accepting the > other two documents as WG documents after the upcoming meeting. > > We would appreciate discussion on the RTGWG mailing list. > > Thanks, > > Curtis > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
