Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sun, 18 August 2013 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 314A011E8171 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:03:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sD5HprL6goWE for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0C611E814B for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 11:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7II3jGH024666; Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:03:45 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7II3hRk024637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:03:44 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Lou Berger'" <lberger@labn.net>, "'Daniele Ceccarelli'" <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
References: <031c01ce8b87$45b79cb0$d126d610$@olddog.co.uk> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48126BF3@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <51F94497.8010402@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <51F94497.8010402@labn.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 19:03:44 +0100
Message-ID: <044501ce9c3d$48007250$d80156f0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIXx93VA/UdhQko2wImjUTLAiqMbQK/MUvxAZHZ7gGY5mF6IA==
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 18:03:55 -0000

Hi all,

> > At the end of the intro we added the following sentence:
> > "  As far as it concerns routing, analogous considerations apply to IS-IS
> >   [RFC5307] but in the following only a gap analysis with respect to OSPF-TE
is
> > provided."
> >
> 
> Given that the analysis for 5307 is pretty similar to 4203, I think you
> should take a pass at including it as well.  I'm happy to
> review/contribute as needed.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lou (chair & doc shepherd)

Was there any further progress on this?

I see that the current revision addresses all other points. The note added to
excuse mentioning IS-IS is a bit skinny, and I would not like to bet money on
you having actually done the analysis to support adding it :-)

It may be the case that only a small proportion of CCAMP is interested in IS-IS,
and it may be the case that the intersection of those people with those
interested in OTN is vanishingly small. If that is the case (I guess Lou can
find out) we should excuse IS-IS in a more open and blatant way while soliciting
and offering to help work on IS-IS for OTN.

Cheers,
Adrian