[CCAMP] Does draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3 obsolete RFC4328?

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 14 June 2013 21:18 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D4721F9B0C for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.335
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OF-tJKpzkwr5 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com (oproxy7-pub.bluehost.com [67.222.55.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 56E7121F9AE8 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 21717 invoked by uid 0); 14 Jun 2013 21:17:59 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy7.bluehost.com with SMTP; 14 Jun 2013 21:17:59 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Subject:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=vb1mzhnKeivCtjSxwuaK3KyIc71zEdB4KEhqK44+Rkc=; b=xGG/6sLLZhmGxz68PrigY5z7k3aKUNQQ9oZT0E7Y3IMnbDe7j6nuwKDzGHs9Az13yQOeGj1CJcwX7LilQ2L2kkg5az1bKAXIfV1Np+GDBp15V1gWkvpkK6nXX+nr/q2S;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:40233 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1UnbNf-00080L-AJ for ccamp@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:17:59 -0600
Message-ID: <51BB8884.30509@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:17:56 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Subject: [CCAMP] Does draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3 obsolete RFC4328?
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:18:32 -0000

WG,
	As part of the publication request for
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3 we have to answer the question
of how it relates to RFC4328.  I think things have evolved since the WG
started this work. My view (with all hats) is that new implementations
should really look to this work and not RFC4328 and that we, the IETF,
should not leave in force two standards for the control of the same
types of OTN signals.

This basically means that draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-signaling-g709v3
obsoletes RFC4328.

Does anyone disagree?

Much thanks,
Lou