Re: Polling for two new working group I-Ds

[Tomohiro Otani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dimitri,

Sorry for the delay of the response.

As Adrian mentioned, in order to improve the document, we need more
feedback from operational people more than myself. After the meeting,
I talked with Dave about the feedback and Wataru will also add some
comments.  Indeed, we are also happy to reflect comments raised in
the list as a revised version.

So, as Tom mentioned, once it is accepted as a WG draft, it should
be accelerated more.

Regards,

Tomo




dimitri papadimitriou さんは書きました:
> i would argue along the same line
> 
> the question for now is about - need for such document - (imho it is the 
> case ack'ing that there are also additional considerations that could be 
> taken into for next releases as topic matures)
> 
> ps: the main issue is do we have enough good understanding about the 
> control plane operations in the field to write a useful document (to 
> achieve this i hope we will gather such feedback from the list)
> 
> -d.
> 
> Thomas D. Nadeau wrote:
>>
>>     Although I agree with you on the change
>> and the point of sending liaison statements,
>> I do not see how this should preclude the document
>> from being accepted as a CCAMP WG draft.  Liaison
>> statements, their handling and transmission are issues
>> that are orthogonal to the creation of WG drafts.
>>
>>     --Tom
>>
>>> Adrian
>>>
>>> I do not believe that 
>>> draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements-01.txt should be a work 
>>> group document until two clarifications / improvements are made to 
>>> the current text, and we have agreement that the requirements 
>>> specification will be socialized with ITU and IEEE 802.1 by way of an 
>>> appropriate liaison. The two changes to the text that I request are
>>>
>>> 1) In Section 1 Introduction, please change the sentence
>>>
>>> "This document describes requirements for data plane operations and 
>>> management (OAM) for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 
>>> (GMPLS) networks"
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> "This document describes requirements for control plane operations 
>>> and management (OAM) for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching 
>>> (GMPLS) networks. It also describes OAM requirements associated with 
>>> the interaction between the GMPLS Control Plane and Data Plane OAM."
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) In Section 4 General Requirements, please change the sentence
>>>
>>> "The general requirements described in this section are based on 
>>> those described for point-to-point MPLS in [RFC4377]."
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> "For MPLS-TE/GMPLS networks, the general requirements described in 
>>> this section are based on those described for point-to-point MPLS in 
>>> [RFC4377]."
>>>
>>> Considering that ITU SG 15 has responsibility for SDH / SONET and WDM 
>>> data planes and IEEE 802.1 has responsibility for the 802.1ah PBB and 
>>> 802.1ay PBB-TE data planes, including data plane OAM - the ID should 
>>> be sent to these SDOs with an appropriate liaison.
>>>
>>> IEEE 802.1 is also doing PBB / PBB-TE MIBs and ITU SG 4 is 
>>> responsible for the management of SDH / SONET / WDM networks, so any 
>>> new management requirements that this ID identifies, will be relevant 
>>> to the purview of these SDOs
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Don
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On
>>> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>>> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 10:33 AM
>>> To: [e-mail]
>>> Subject: Polling for two new working group I-Ds
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In Chicago we considered the possibility of two new CCAMP drafts. Please
>>> give your opinions:
>>>
>>> 1. draft-chen-ccamp-isis-interas-te-extension-00.txt
>>> This is a partner draft to 
>>> draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-interas-te-extension-00.txt
>>> The draft was discussed at the ISIS working group and several 
>>> questions of
>>> detail were raised.
>>> Thus, accepting this I-D now, does not imply that we would not change 
>>> the
>>> mechanism.
>>>
>>> 2. draft-nadeau-ccamp-gmpls-oam-requirements-01.txt
>>> This work is a charter milestone, and Deborah and I are both 
>>> co-authors, so
>>> we are likely to be influenced in favour of adoption. So please voice 
>>> your
>>> opinions loud and clear.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Adrian
>>
>>
>> .
>>
> 
> 
>