Re: Lf_carrier post from kcbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx requires approval

[cherry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John Cherry)]

On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 10:15 +0200, Soren Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 01:45:11PM -0700, John Cherry wrote:
> > Asianux is reporting that they have completed the self-registration
> > process for CGL 3.2 and is ready to post results.
> 
> I feel like I'm missing something here... Why would someone register for
> 3.2 instead of 4.0?

Linux vendors have the option of completing their self-registration
against the CGL 3.2 specifications or to register against the CGL 4.0
specifications.  The CGL 4.0 specifications are more in line with the
SCOPE Alliance's Carrier Grade Profile and there are tighter
requirements around compliance, so CGL 4.0 registration would be of more
value to the Linux Vendors and their partners.  We are actually
encouraging CGL 4.0 registrations from this point forward.

FYI, the announcement that I just blogged for Asianux includes a pitch
for CGL 4.0.

http://www.linux-foundation.org/weblogs/cherry/2007/09/28/asianux-30-is-registered-against-cgl-32/

Cheers,
John

> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lf_carrier mailing list
> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier