Re: [CCAMP] Planning for Vancouver

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

All,

We were asked to clarify a few points this planned discussion:

1) What do we expect to be presented during this discussion?

   As discussed in the original message, we expected presentations
   on use cases that are precluded from being fully supported by the
   current set of RFCs, as well as the identification of specific
   limitations that preclude full support. The presenter gets to
   choose & defend what they mean by (full) support.

2) Who do we expect to present?

   Anyone who has a draft that covers a use case, identifies a
   limitation, or proposes a related extension (mechanism).  For
   those in the last category, remember to present your use case
   and limitations, *not* the proposed solution.

3) How does one request a slot to be included in the discussion?

   Go to http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QLK9BB6, fill in the usual
   information and say "yes" to question 6.

Lou (and Deborah)

On 10/10/2013 4:54 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
> 
> All,
> 	We are currently scheduled to meet Thursday during the first 2.5 hour
> and the last 1 hour sessions.  We'd like to use a block of the time,
> perhaps 30-60 minutes, to help move the discussion on
> UNI/PCE/ENNI/MLN/... forward.
> 
> The current set of GMPLS RFCs allow for different choices in
> implementation and deployment by vendors and operators, both with and
> without PCE.  From the discussion on the list, it's clear that there are
> some very different perspectives on these choices.  While its not the
> WG's job to dictate how operators build their networks, having some
> common understanding is helpful.  The topics we'd like to focus the
> discussion on are:
> 
> 1) Use cases (which are important)
>    e.g. which GMPLS protocols are used, layer model,
>         if&how PCE is used, etc.
>    Some drafts that touch on this include
>    (we may have unintentionally overlooked others):
>      draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-uni-error-notification
>      draft-beeram-ccamp-gmpls-enni
>      draft-ceccadedios-ccamp-overlay-use-cases
>      draft-fedyk-ccamp-uni-extensions
>      draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-uni-app
>      draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange
> 
> 2) Current limitations
>    Covering functions that are not supported by current RFCs.
>    e.g., it's not possible to signal a services that has
>          <XYZ property> in <fill in the blank> specific use case.
>          Not I can't signal this object, or routing doesn't carry
>          this field.
> 
>          LSP diversity/similarity in certain UNI cases is an
>          example discussed on the list.
> 
> Please note: we will avoid/stop discussions on any new mechanisms in
> this part of the meeting.
> 
> To present as part of this discussion, request a slot per Danielle's
> message.
> 
> Deborah and Lou
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> 
> 
>