RE: WG dcoument status

["Vishal Sharma" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kireeti,

There was one more document:
"Framework for GMPLS Control of SDH/SONET Networks"

that explains the issues to be kept in mind when using GMPLS for SDH/SONET
networks.
This was to become a WG document and progress along the Informational
track (per London presentation, and subsequent comments and meeting
minutes).

We had already trimmed the document in response to WG feedback
before the London meeting, and Greg presented the changes in
London.

This was one of the initial documents on the subject, geared towards
addressing the request by many people to explain what are the problems with
SONET using GMPLS.

It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the list below. We're looking for
guidance on what the Chairs and ADs would like us to do with this
document. We'd like to update it to reflect its WG status,
and move forward on it.

Please let us know how to proceed.

Thanks,
-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]On
> Behalf Of Kireeti Kompella
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 8:52 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: WG dcoument status
>
>
> Here's a status update.
>
> The signaling drafts:
> 	draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-05.txt
> 	draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt
> 	draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt
> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
> have finished WG Last Call, and will be sent on to IETF Last Call.
> They are on the track for Proposed Standard.
>
> Bert Wijnen (AD) has suggested that there should be an implementation
> statement before these move on to IETF Last Call; the WG chairs and
> draft editors agreed.  One note: the SDH/SONET label issue must be put
> to rest before the SDH/SONET draft can move forward.  All other issues
> are now closed.
>
> The LMP draft:
> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-02.txt
> has gone through one round of WG Last Call comments and, once a
> new version has been produced incorporating these comments, will
> go through a final WG Last Call.  This is also targeted as a
> Proposed Standard.
>
> The following draft, a companion to the above LMP document, is
> also targeted at Proposed Standard, and is still being worked on:
> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-00.txt
>
> The routing drafts:
> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-02.txt
> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-04.txt
> are awaiting WG consensus for going into WG Last Call.  These
> are also targeted for Proposed Standard.  (Note that the ISIS
> draft is owned by the ISIS WG.)
>
> The following drafts are Informational:
> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-01.txt
> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt
> They are awaiting final touches from the editor before they
> progress.
>
> The following two documents are also being worked on:
> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-oli-reqts-00.txt
> 	draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-00.txt
> The first is an Informational document; the second is aimed
> at Proposed Standard.
>
> The MIBs are being reworked in response to comments from the AD.
> When the new versions are ready, the WG will then be asked for
> consensus to make them WG docs.
>
> Kireeti.
>