Re: [CCAMP] WG for delay-loss problem-statement & framework

Greg,
	Not an unreasonable question. While the "Definition of
protocol-independent metrics and parameters" is within the scope of the
charter, I'd expect this work will more likely align with the charter
task of "Define how the properties of network resources gathered by a
measurement protocol (or by other means e.g. configured) can be
distributed in existing routing protocols".

That said, this work has been in CCAMP for all of about 75 minutes, so
it's a little premature for me to have a definitive position.

Lou

On 11/8/2012 6:07 PM, Gregory Mirsky wrote:
> Hi Lou, at al.,
> Would the CCAMP WG host work on PM methodology? I think that accurate
> definition of measurement methodology to produce useful data is as
> important as specification of mechanisms to propagate and use them.
>  
>         Regards,
>                 Greg
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [_mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org_] On Behalf
> Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:16 PM
> To: mpls@ietf.org; CCAMP
> Subject: [CCAMP] WG for delay-loss problem-statement & framework
>  
> In the MPLS session, we just discussed if the following drafts should go
> to MPLS or CCAMP:
> draft-fuxh-mpls-delay-loss-te-problem-statement-01
> draft-fuxh-mpls-delay-loss-te-framework-06
>  
> All the chairs in the room said it was up to the AD (Loa was on Jabber,
> Deborah was stuck in NJ).  Adrian (our AD) just leaned over and said
> CCAMP, and I agree.  So, I think we have our answer!
>  
> Lou
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> _https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp_
>  