Re: [bmwg] Fwd: Tentative Agenda for BMWG at IETF-57

Scott Poretsky wrote:
 >
 > In Atlanta, Jerry presented "Automatic Protection Switching Benchmark
 > Terminology".  We had a 15 minute discussion.  The group concluded with
 > Kevin's agreement and affirmation that the proposed work was too broad
 > and MPLS should not be addressed in the same document as SONET APS and
 > RPR.  I am open to the MPLS Protection Methodology being covered under
 > this work item or considered a separate work item.  I guess we can
 > revisit it at the meeting.

 From the Atlanta BMWG minutes:

"Since protection could happen at various layers (or sub-layers), such as
SONET or MPLS, there was a discussion on how best to tackle this.  The
group gravitated to the idea that a single, common terminology document
with subsequent methodology documents for individual recovery
mechanisms (e.g., one for MPLS, one for APS, etc.) might be the way to go."

I believe the current effort proposes to conform to the above notions, no?
(I.e., single terminology spec; multiple, narrowly focused methodological
specifications?)

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg