Adrian> I am saying that it sounds to me from the discussion that Adrian> the ITU has not yet reached consent. It seemed to me that Adrian> if the draft is intended to document the ITU preferences as Adrian> informational, it would be as well to wait until the ITU has Adrian> fully signed off. I don't see any rush for this. Loa> ok - I can see the difference - and it seems that you are correct. If Loa> the ITU discussion still has some way to go before the discussion Loa> settles and the preferences better known - wouldn't it be Loa> appropriate to wait until this happens? ASON Signaling Recommendations G.7713.2 (GMPLS RSVP-TE) and G.7713.3 (GMPLS CR-LDP) are proposed for consent at the upcoming SG15 meeting, 20-31 January (Geneva). A Liaison was sent to the IETF containing Recommendation text, but I can't find it on http://www.ietf.org/IESG/LIAISON/. Both documents propose detailed protocol specifications including new TLVs (e.g., crankback TLV in G.7713.3). The intent of these Recommendations is unclear. If these are statements of 'ITU preferences/requirements' which are made known to the IETF through the Informational RFCs, such as Osama's and Zhi's, then fine. IETF can then take up the 'preferences/requirements' and consider them for upgrading RSVP-TE and CR-LDP protocols (although CR-LDP is capped). However, if they are intended as alternative protocol specs competing with the IETF specs, then that's a problem. Which spec does a vendor implement and an operator use, given interoperability needs, etc.? It would be analogous to the IETF specifying their version of G.709. A clarification of the intent of these Recs. would be helpful. Jerry Ash