Re: [CCAMP] Question about draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-09.txt

Lou,

I think that is fine. 

This draft should give some weight to IS-IS (at least mention it :-) along with
OSPF.

I am not requiring the WG to produce IS-IS solution drafts. The only requirement
there is to facilitate IS-IS solutions drafts if people want to write them and
intend to implement in code.

A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lou Berger [mailto:lberger@labn.net]
> Sent: 30 July 2013 12:31
> To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
> Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Question about draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-
> 09.txt
> 
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> So IS-IS is certainly still a viable GMPLS routing protocol and it should be
> mentioned in the draft as a possibility. Good catch.
> 
> The more general issue with GMPLS IS-IS, from my perspective, is that there
> hasn't been much interest in working on related drafts in the WG. GMPLS IS-IS
> remains in scope, but drafts aren't being written.  I take this as the market
> "speaking".
> 
> Lou
> 
> On 10:29am, July 28, 2013, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> > Hi CCAMP,
> >
> > I am currently reviewing draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model-09.txt
> (cunningly
> > deceptive file name ;-)
> >
> > I have a question...
> >
> > The document makes reference to RFC 4202 and RFC 4203, but not to RFC 5307
> > (obsoleted RFC 4205). Can I ask why CCAMP no longer considers IS-IS to be a
> > potential routing protocol for GMPLS systems?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CCAMP mailing list
> > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> >