Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg
Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 30 July 2014 22:25 UTC
Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9E11A0295 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.067
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.067 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hr0qkWHZAkGG for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D125A1A02E4 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23335 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jul 2014 22:25:43 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw4) (10.0.90.85) by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2014 22:25:43 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id YsRf1o0082SSUrH01sRiwQ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:25:42 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=OcELUHjY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=WrhVjQHxoPwA:10 a=QpUaPE1CezIA:10 a=oxZIVayYhpcA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=uEJ9t1CZtbIA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=TMobNrhan7iT7SLZLVIA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=33rK67OTR_gA:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=Y/YqRIc0CpSVgeA5NwxJwLbnjmY0wiljy9h1QbQKdr8=; b=HLWuxjEFMKvj+K4/yDDcTUf/dkQhv2m0genXVrZ8/dWRJXfPIyDAxb97soS6sYXCr7IHWMbZpnBnX2Ogs0Ii5XITyzxkpMfWRhZ6WLQ2jshfXX2PaF80gQCOr2WPWlQL;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:47393 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1XCcJY-0001CY-AS; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:25:40 -0600
Message-ID: <53D970FF.6040206@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:26:07 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
References: <CFF939EF.C1566%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CFF939EF.C1566%zali@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/ZasMoYStcPhsZyIQ7pJz8OyS16w
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:25:46 -0000
Hi Zafar, Considering you weren't at the meeting you got close to the discussed actions. From the raw minutes: > Lou: I suspect you mean "Standards Action" rather than "Unassigned" > Lou: Any comments from our AD - expect there are two areas where he > may comment > Adrian: The Experimental range looks large, also perhaps "Expert > Reivew" is better than "Experimental" > Adrian: the G.Supp43 values should be under Expert Review rather > than Experimental, as they're going to be around for too long to be > really experimental > Lou: Agreed, not sure why we (AD&Chair) focused on Experimental at > the last meeting, but Expert Reviews is clearly a better choice. > Authors, please make the change to allow for Expert review, consider > shrinking the experimental range and remove the private range. The > document should indicate that the expert (for the expert review) will > be appointed by the CCAMP WG chairs. > > Lou: The prior document should also request "Expert Review" values. So looking at the documents I think you have some actions to do before we can poll for adoption. Also, strictly speaking you no longer need to change the registry values, but rather just the registry assignment policy. This is all I'd personally recommend to do, but if you want to both change the registry policy and add an experimental range, this is your prerogative. To fix *just* the assignment problem (and keep things simple), I think you can do the following to draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry: 2. IANA Considerations IANA maintains the an "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry. The registry currently is defined to use the Standards Action registration policy as defined by [RFC5226]. This document directs that both Standards Action and Specification Required policies, as defined in [RFC5226], be applied to this subregistry. When needed, the Designated Expert shall be identified by a CCAMP WG chair or, in the case the group is no longer active, by the IESG. and Update the intro and abstract text to be aligned with this text. For draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 - I think trying to maintain alignment with the text of draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry provides no value, adds unnecessary dependent details, and should be dropped from the document. (Or do the extra work of updating it to match the changes and then rev this document every time the other changes.) - You no longer need to describe the range or suggest specific values. Unless I missed something, I believe that's it. Lou On 7/26/2014 10:59 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: > Hi Lou, Deborah, Adrian and the WG: > > The following two documents listed in the email has been updated based on > the comments received from Chairs, ADs and the WG. Pointer to the latest > version of the drafts are provided. > > 17 - draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry ===> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregi > stry-01.txt > 18 - draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 ===> > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-03.t > xt > > > These are very slim documents to get code points for ODU1e, ODU3e1, and > ODU3e2. We believe there is support from the WG in this work to start > adoption poll. > > Any comments and a follow-up adoption poll will be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks > > Regards Š Zafar > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net> > Date: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:17 AM > To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org> > Subject: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg > >> All, >> As described in yesterday's routing area meeting, see >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-rtgarea-3.ppt, our >> ADs have initiated some changes that will impact CCAMP. As presented, >> technology specific work will remain in ccamp. The other details of >> these changes will be flushed out as part of the forthcoming charter >> drafting / revising. >> >> As our AD's have stated, it is important that these changes do not stop >> us from making progress. In this week's meetings we discussed actions >> related to a number of individual drafts that we don't expect to be >> impacted by the changes. In particular, we discussed planned updates, >> and subsequent adoption polls, of the following drafts: >> >>> 11 - draft-martinelli-ccamp-wson-iv-info >>> 12 - draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp >>> 13 - draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib >>> 17 - draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry >>> 18 - draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 >> Please do your updates as discussed and we should be able to poll these >> documents, as planned. (Hopefully in time to allow for the discussed >> liaison to ITU-T.) >> >> Importantly, work on WG drafts should also continue as discussed/planned. >> >> We hope that this addresses the questions we received offline. If you >> still have questions, please feel free to send them to the list -- or >> privately if you prefer. >> >> Deborah and Lou >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CCAMP mailing list >> CCAMP@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >
- [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg Zafar Ali (zali)
- [CCAMP] Request for comments and adoption for dra… Zafar Ali (zali)