Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion

Hi Zafar,

could you spell out what are the technical aspects you are missing? 

Thanks

Gert

-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: 30 January 2014 04:19
To: Lou Berger; John E Drake; CCAMP; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion

Hi:

Section "GMPLS UNI and Overlay Networks" of
draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-02 requires more work and details on the signaling based solution, before we can agree readiness of this draft as Document 2 (&1) that WG agreed to work on.

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar

-----Original Message-----
From: "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net>
Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:51 PM
To: "jdrake@juniper.net" <jdrake@juniper.net>, "ccamp@ietf.org"
<ccamp@ietf.org>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion

>John,
>	This sounds like great progress.  Clearly the objective is to document 
>WG views on this topic, whether it be in 1 document or 2. I look 
>forward to seeing the updated document and the associated discussions 
>(on it and the other related drafts) in London.  I expect that adoption 
>will depend on how that and any list discussions go, particularly how 
>the other perspectives that have been/are voiced are addressed.
>
>Thanks,
>Lou
>
>On 01/29/2014 05:33 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>> Deborah and Lou,
>> 
>> The authors of draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange plan to 
>> post a new revision before the London IETF deadline. We think this 
>> document already contains the material for your documents 1 & 2 and 
>> clearly shows that very few protocol extensions will be needed.
>> The document also addresses both multi-technology scenarios as well 
>> as peer-network use cases. We believe that there has been a good 
>> level of offline discussion and support of this document and would 
>> like to hear comments on the mailing list.
>> 
>
>> In particular, whether it is ready for adoption by the WG.
>> 
>> Yours Irrespectively,
>> 
>> John
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:08 AM
>>> To: CCAMP; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)
>>> Subject: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> We wanted to follow up on the plan we discussed in Vancouver.
>>>
>>> In Vancouver, we had talked about three types of documents:
>>>    Document 1 - Models & Terminology
>>> 	To be based on existing text / drafts
>>>    Document 2 - Framework
>>> 	To includes analysis of what can be supported
>>> 	and what functions need support
>>> 	(Again, taking from existing text / drafts
>>> 	where available.)
>>>    Document type 3 - Solution documents
>>> 	To be purely contribution driven
>>>
>>> The enlisted editors of the first document (Julien and Oscar) have 
>>>been making  progress and we expect that they will publish a draft 
>>>soon.  This draft will be a  starting point for discussion and 
>>>contribution/co-authorship, rather than  anything near completion.
>>>
>>> It's our hope that the document will be a sufficient foundation for 
>>>work on  Document 2 to start.  Keep in mind that all documents will 
>>>be based on  contributions brought to / discussed by the WG.  To be 
>>>clear, and to respond to  some off-list e-mail, there is no 
>>>limitation on discussion, drafts or  presentations at the next 
>>>meeting on this or any related topic.
>>>
>>> Deborah and Lou
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>> CCAMP@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>CCAMP mailing list
>CCAMP@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
CCAMP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp