Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues

Hallo Gert,

You wrote:

> we go back and forth on this since quite a while.
 > As neither the LMP nor the SNMP draft are WG documents,
 > there is no Liaison.

I was not aware of the requirement to have a WG document before
being able to liaise.
In that case only direct communication between the autors and Q6
experst remains.

> Without Liaison we don't get official input from Q6 and need to
 > work with informal communication.

What will you do if Q6 experts do not support your ideas?

 > My understanding is that Q6 doesn't have an issue with CCAMP
 > working on LMP but wants to review a parameter.

My understanding is that they are concerned about using an
application code with additional parameter values. This is
in fact creating a new application code.

 > So technically we should be ready to accept this as a WG item
 > and use it as a basis for a Liaison with Q6.

You asked the same question about accepting in the meeting
I did not see much support.

My 2p,
Regards, Huub.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Huub van Helvoort
> Sent: 14 March 2014 15:27
> To: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues
>
> Hallo Rüdiger,
>
> You wrote:
>
>> Huub and Dieter mentioned during the CAMP session in London that ITU-T
>> Q6 has some concerns about additional values in document.
>
> It was indeed I who mentioned that. During conversations with Q6 experts I noticed that they have still concerns regarding the use of an application code and adding additional parameters because that defeats the intention to define and use application codes.
>
> My intent was to suggest that you communicate with Q6 experts either by attending Q6 meetings and submit contributions for discussion, or write a liaison from CCAMP to Q6 asking for their opinion regarding the drafts that were introduced in the CCAMP meeting.
>
>> Gabriele mentioned the reason for adding these values and we will
>> update the documents with explaining text.
>
> I was only the messenger, it would be better to communicate directly with Q6 experts.
>
>> During our common meeting with ITU-T at IETF 86 Pete Anslow mentioned:
>   > Transmit power may be useful, beyond
>> that I cannot think of anything else you may want to set.
>
> IETF86 is already some time ago. You could have asked in the meantime what Pete actually did mean by "may be useful".
>
>> If you guys have still concerns lets discuss these points on the list.
>
> Again: I am only the messenger, please talk to the Q6 experts directly. FYI Q6 is meeting in the week of March 23.
>
> Best regards, tschüss, Huub.
>
>
>
>
> --
> *****************************************************************
>                 请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>

-- 
*****************************************************************
               请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样