Re: [CCAMP] draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib and draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp

[Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gert,

I don't think there were sufficient support (besides claim from the authors) on these drafts  from the WG (even from ITU-T SG15) because I was there for a couple of IETF meetings.

I am not going to share my technical comments here, but I would like to share the conclusion on this topic from the Q6/SG15 report in Nuremberg last October, (fortunately, our WG chair-Deborah was there, :)):

========================================================================================================================
WD06-19 contained a proposal to add a new appendix on link management protocol (LMP) to G.698.2 and to send a Liaison Statement to IETF's CCAMP WG with a list of parameters that could be exchanged via LMP. During the discussion on WD06-19 it became clear that this proposal is intended to enable operators to use different boundaries than provided by the specifications in G.698.2. There was no support for this contribution because:

*        G.698.2 is about a binary state of being compliant to an application code specification: Yes or No.

*        How to do joint engineering, in particular inside a black link, is outside the scope of G.698.2.

*        The possibilities when modifying parameter values are outside the scope of G.698.2.

*        An architectural need to perform degradation management and operating of links outside the boundaries of the specifications of G.698.2 has not yet been established by Q14/15.




Best Regards

Fatai

From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 6:04 AM
To: Gert Grammel; Lou Berger; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib and draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp

Hi Gert,

Considering the timing, we will poll at the meeting for support and then follow up after the meeting with a poll on the list. Recommend you should not use your time slot to present information previously presented/discussed, as we will need the time to gauge the interest in the drafts.

Thanks,
Deborah


From: Gert Grammel [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:01 PM
To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A; Lou Berger; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib and draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp

Hi Deborah and Lou,

the authors think that the content of  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib-06 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp-06 has sufficient maturity and support in the WG. We suggest starting a poll on the mailing list so we can conclude at the IETF meeting in London.

Thanks

Gert