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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

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