Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

<> Wed, 09 July 2014 13:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B39F11A0647 for <>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_AVOID=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDSETqYEE-yk for <>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 043881A0645 for <>; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 06:01:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 09 Jul 2014 15:01:11 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 15:01:10 +0200
From: <>
To: <>, <>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 15:01:07 +0200
Thread-Topic: draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib
Thread-Index: Ac+XAT5ztVyFVTboTtq7YqBZHj6KHgEc6cpw
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
acceptlanguage: de-DE
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_08AFB17A021B974CBAA6BA84FA19B43CA0EE2A49B3HE101454emea1_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 13:01:45 -0000

Hello CCAMPers,

I worked through the last ccamp minutes and try to catch the issues with these both documents.
The values in the drafts are corresponding to ITU-T G.698.2.
Why should it not be possible to set power and wavelength in the Black Link case?  Every transponder could be configured  and maintained in the same manner.

From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of Gert Grammel
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:57 PM
Subject: [CCAMP] draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp and draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib

The authors of and
Put new versions out and would encourage discussion on the list. We'd like to collect input before the meeting to a void last-minute surprises. We also work in parallel on a draft Liaison request to clarify with SG15 Q6 and Q14 to clarify comments made at previous ccamp meetings.

As a reminder: the drafts define parameters to enable management and Link Management of G.698.2 compliant interfaces.
Gert Grammel