Re: Moving right along ...

[Zhi-Wei Lin <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kireeti, all,

Regarding the GMPLS signaling set of I-Ds...

-- cr-ldp is in version 4, which means that the revisions done to 
rsvp-te05 has not been reflected there...how do we resolve this 
inconsistency?

-- rsvp-te-05 and signaling-06 has incorporated the restart capability 
as proposed by Ping Pan. However, that work was never looked at 
carefully and some issues remain on how this covers all the different 
cases. Is it correct to simply include content of individual drafts into 
a WG draft that is in last call without adequate data on whether it 
handles all the different cases?

-- signaling-06 also includes several new items in there that doesn't 
seem to be added because of a identified need (do a diff to find the 
differences). Why were they added to the document (I'm not questioning 
them, just asking for clarifying explanation)?

-- in signaling-06, since we've decided that this set of I-Ds are to be 
consistent with the standards for the respective technologies, then 
"Digital Wrapper, G.709" should be changed to "ODUk, G.709" or something 
that is used in G.709 or G.872 to describe the types of the signals...

-- There are still some technical questions remaining on some content of 
the sonet-sdh-02 that are still been discussed in a private list (my 
understanding). Shouldn't these be resolved first before it goes for 
last call?

-- in sonet-sdh-extension-00, we would like to add two new flags into 
the list of flags for transparency (I have spoken to Eric already, and 
I'm waiting to have these added in the next version):
      flag 13: M0
      flag 14: M1

-- I believe g709-00 is currently undergoing some changes to align with 
standards positions and to reflect the work on OTN TDM that is been 
discussed in ITU study group 15 meeting this week and next week.

Zhi



Kireeti Kompella wrote:

> Despite the energetic subject line, we the WG chairs have been
> lax in our duties.  So, here goes:
> 
> Lou has submitted the latest versions of the generalized
> signaling documents quite some time ago (thanks, Lou):
> 
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-05.txt
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-06.txt
> 
> Also, Eric has posted the SONET/SDH documents (merci, Eric):
> 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt
> 
> All of these should have addressed the issues raised in the earlier
> versions.  Please read the new versions, and send your comments to
> the list by Tuesday Oct 23.  At that point, when the final round
> of comments have been addressed, these docs will go to IESG Last
> Call.  If any one objects to sending these docs to IESG Last Call,
> raise your issues now.
> 
> I see that the GMPLS architecture document is a CCAMP WG doc, but
> the minutes say that we should look for consensus on the list.  So,
> if you think this doc *shouldn't* be a WG doc, let us know.  (If we
> arrived at a consensus, remind me :-))  If nothing is heard, the doc
> will progress to WG Last Call.
> 
> The docs draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt and
> draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt were under consideration to be
> CCAMP WG docs; consensus at the meeting was Yes.  Please let the
> list know what your thinking is on these.  (BTW, both these docs
> were to have some edits done.  If the authors could do that before
> the next IETF, we can try to make more progress then.)
> 
> The MIB overview doc was recently posted.  Please read and comment
> to the list.
> 
> The doc draft-bms-optical-sdhsonet-mpls-control-frmwrk-01.txt
> was generally thought to be useful; it will be published as a
> CCAMP informational doc.  This begins a two week Last Call on
> the doc, ending Tuesday Oct 30.
> 
> There was no consensus on whether the GMPLS framework should be
> a CCAMP WG doc.  Please indicate your pleasure.
> 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-01.txt has been posted.  The thought was
> raised that this draft is close to ready for WG Last Call.  Please
> review it, and let us know if you disagree.
> 
> The OLI requirements doc was broadly accepted.  Please let the
> list know if you think this doc should be a WG doc.
> 
> It's still open whether we (the IETF) should be working on
> LMP-WDM.  I urge the authors to keep on working on the doc, and
> keeping it in sync with LMP; however, we will postpone making it
> a CCAMP WG doc until the issue is resolved.  Hopefully that will
> happen in Salt Lake City.
> 
> There was reasonable interest in the tunnel trace requirements
> doc.  Let's formalize this: do you think this should be made a
> CCAMP WG document?
> 
> Summary:
> 
> 1) Final comments and IESG Last Call readiness for:
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-05.txt
> draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-06.txt
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt
> 
> 2) Should the following documents be CCAMP WG docs?
> draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02.txt
> draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-00.txt
> draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt
> draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-framework-00.txt
> draft-many-oli-reqts-00.txt
> 
> 3) Comment on MIB overview.
> 
> 4) Two week Last Call comments on
> draft-bms-optical-sdhsonet-mpls-control-frmwrk-01.txt
> 
> 5) Last Call readiness of
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-00.txt
> draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-01.txt
> 
> Thanks,
> Kireeti.
> 
>