Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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    identified by a CCAMP WG chair or, in the case the group is no
longer active, by the IESG.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: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:17 AM
> To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> 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
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>