Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion

[Gert Grammel <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zafar

Do you consider sharing those on the list or updating the draft before the IETF Meeting?

Gert


-----Original Message-----
From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 20 February 2014 19:19
To: Zafar Ali (zali); Gert Grammel; Lou Berger; John E Drake; CCAMP; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion

Hi-

FYI, we followed-up on this but the proposed text did not make it to the draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange. These comments need to be addressed before we can agree on readiness of this draft as Document 2 that WG agreed to work on.

Thanks

Regards ... Zafar


-----Original Message-----
From: zali <[e-mail]>
Date: Monday, February 3, 2014 1:04 AM
To: Gert Grammel <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
<[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)"
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion

>Hi-
>
>Daniele send some additional text offline, which I plan to review and 
>send my comments. I can also proposed some text.
> 
>Thanks
>
>Regards ... Zafar
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gert Grammel <[e-mail]>
>Date: Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:50 AM
>To: zali <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, 
>"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
><[e-mail]>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
>
>>Hi Zafar,
>>
>>could you spell out what are the technical aspects you are missing?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Gert
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali 
>>(zali)
>>Sent: 30 January 2014 04:19
>>To: Lou Berger; John E Drake; CCAMP; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)
>>Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
>>
>>Hi:
>>
>>Section "GMPLS UNI and Overlay Networks" of
>>draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-02 requires more work and 
>>details on the signaling based solution, before we can agree readiness 
>>of this draft as Document 2 (&1) that WG agreed to work on.
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Regards Š Zafar
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>>Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:51 PM
>>To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>><[e-mail]>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <[e-mail]>
>>Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
>>
>>>John,
>>>	This sounds like great progress.  Clearly the objective is to 
>>>document WG views on this topic, whether it be in 1 document or 2. I 
>>>look forward to seeing the updated document and the associated 
>>>discussions (on it and the other related drafts) in London.  I expect 
>>>that adoption will depend on how that and any list discussions go, 
>>>particularly how the other perspectives that have been/are voiced are addressed.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Lou
>>>
>>>On 01/29/2014 05:33 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>>>> Deborah and Lou,
>>>> 
>>>> The authors of draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange plan to 
>>>> post a new revision before the London IETF deadline. We think this 
>>>> document already contains the material for your documents 1 & 2 and 
>>>> clearly shows that very few protocol extensions will be needed.
>>>> The document also addresses both multi-technology scenarios as well 
>>>> as peer-network use cases. We believe that there has been a good 
>>>> level of offline discussion and support of this document and would 
>>>> like to hear comments on the mailing list.
>>>> 
>>>
>>>> In particular, whether it is ready for adoption by the WG.
>>>> 
>>>> Yours Irrespectively,
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou 
>>>>> Berger
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:08 AM
>>>>> To: CCAMP; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)
>>>>> Subject: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
>>>>>
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> We wanted to follow up on the plan we discussed in Vancouver.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Vancouver, we had talked about three types of documents:
>>>>>    Document 1 - Models & Terminology
>>>>> 	To be based on existing text / drafts
>>>>>    Document 2 - Framework
>>>>> 	To includes analysis of what can be supported
>>>>> 	and what functions need support
>>>>> 	(Again, taking from existing text / drafts
>>>>> 	where available.)
>>>>>    Document type 3 - Solution documents
>>>>> 	To be purely contribution driven
>>>>>
>>>>> The enlisted editors of the first document (Julien and Oscar) have 
>>>>>been making  progress and we expect that they will publish a draft 
>>>>>soon.  This draft will be a  starting point for discussion and 
>>>>>contribution/co-authorship, rather than  anything near completion.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's our hope that the document will be a sufficient foundation 
>>>>>for work on  Document 2 to start.  Keep in mind that all documents 
>>>>>will be based on  contributions brought to / discussed by the WG.  
>>>>>To be clear, and to respond to  some off-list e-mail, there is no 
>>>>>limitation on discussion, drafts or  presentations at the next 
>>>>>meeting on this or any related topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deborah and Lou
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CCAMP mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>CCAMP mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>CCAMP mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CCAMP mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp