Re: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label Switching Routers

[Curtis Villamizar <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>
Lou Berger writes:
 
> Iftekhar,
>  
> Speaking purely from a process standpoint: adoption is the start of
> work on a topic, not a codification of an end state.  This is why we
> typically ask if a document reflects a "good starting point for WG
> activity" when discussing the adoption of a draft.
>  
> Again, speaking from a general perspective, I certainly don't think
> the process requires discussion/adoption to be blocked while a
> framework (or even requirement) document has some open points.
>  
> Lou


Lou, Iftekhar,

I don't see this as a request to block progress.

Perhaps Iftekhar (or someone) could first outline the control plane
requirements and "other areas" that need to be addressed and suggest
text to address them in the framework.

Curtis


> On January 30, 2014 6:26:40 PM Iftekhar Hussain <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>  
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > Thanks for the update. In my view, there are number of areas which still 
> > needs to be addressed in the framework document (e.g., control plane 
> > requirements) before we move toward solution drafts.
> >
> > BR,
> > Iftekhar
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel King [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 
> > 2014 9:06 AM
> > To: 'CCAMP'
> > Subject: [CCAMP] Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in LSC Label 
> > Switching Routers
> >
> > Hi CCAMP'rs,
> >
> > The authors are planning a revision of this I-D before London, but the only 
> > changes will be the addition of an Implementation Status section as per 
> > RFC6982.
> >
> > It seems to us that this I-D is stable and that there are no further 
> > technical issues. The label format documented in the I-D has been picked up 
> > by the RSVP-TE extensions draft and the ongoing OSPF work.
> > We would like to take this opportunity to solicit feedback from the working
> > group:
> >
> > - Are there any changes you would like to see in the draft? - Are you happy 
> > with the label format described? - What do you think the next steps should 
> > be for this draft?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dan (for the authors)