Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion

[John E Drake <[e-mail]>]

Zafar,

You are using the royal we?

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zafar Ali (zali) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 10:19 AM
> To: Zafar Ali (zali); Gert Grammel; Lou Berger; John E Drake; CCAMP;
> BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
> 
> Hi-
> 
> FYI, we followed-up on this but the proposed text did not make it to the draft-
> farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange. These comments need to be
> addressed before we can agree on readiness of this draft as Document 2 that
> WG agreed to work on.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Regards ... Zafar
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: zali <[e-mail]>
> Date: Monday, February 3, 2014 1:04 AM
> To: Gert Grammel <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
> "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)"
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
> 
> >Hi-
> >
> >Daniele send some additional text offline, which I plan to review and
> >send my comments. I can also proposed some text.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Regards ... Zafar
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Gert Grammel <[e-mail]>
> >Date: Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:50 AM
> >To: zali <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
> >"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> ><[e-mail]>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)"
> <[e-mail]>
> >Subject: RE: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
> >
> >>Hi Zafar,
> >>
> >>could you spell out what are the technical aspects you are missing?
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >>
> >>Gert
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali
> >>(zali)
> >>Sent: 30 January 2014 04:19
> >>To: Lou Berger; John E Drake; CCAMP; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)
> >>Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
> >>
> >>Hi:
> >>
> >>Section "GMPLS UNI and Overlay Networks" of
> >>draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-02 requires more work and
> >>details on the signaling based solution, before we can agree readiness
> >>of this draft as Document 2 (&1) that WG agreed to work on.
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >>
> >>Regards Š Zafar
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> >>Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:51 PM
> >>To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
> >><[e-mail]>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)"
> <[e-mail]>
> >>Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
> >>
> >>>John,
> >>>	This sounds like great progress.  Clearly the objective is to
> >>>document WG views on this topic, whether it be in 1 document or 2. I
> >>>look forward to seeing the updated document and the associated
> >>>discussions (on it and the other related drafts) in London.  I expect
> >>>that adoption will depend on how that and any list discussions go,
> >>>particularly how the other perspectives that have been/are voiced are
> addressed.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Lou
> >>>
> >>>On 01/29/2014 05:33 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> >>>> Deborah and Lou,
> >>>>
> >>>> The authors of draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange plan to
> >>>> post a new revision before the London IETF deadline. We think this
> >>>> document already contains the material for your documents 1 & 2 and
> >>>> clearly shows that very few protocol extensions will be needed.
> >>>> The document also addresses both multi-technology scenarios as well
> >>>> as peer-network use cases. We believe that there has been a good
> >>>> level of offline discussion and support of this document and would
> >>>> like to hear comments on the mailing list.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> In particular, whether it is ready for adoption by the WG.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yours Irrespectively,
> >>>>
> >>>> John
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: CCAMP [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Lou
> >>>>> Berger
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:08 AM
> >>>>> To: CCAMP; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)
> >>>>> Subject: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We wanted to follow up on the plan we discussed in Vancouver.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In Vancouver, we had talked about three types of documents:
> >>>>>    Document 1 - Models & Terminology
> >>>>> 	To be based on existing text / drafts
> >>>>>    Document 2 - Framework
> >>>>> 	To includes analysis of what can be supported
> >>>>> 	and what functions need support
> >>>>> 	(Again, taking from existing text / drafts
> >>>>> 	where available.)
> >>>>>    Document type 3 - Solution documents
> >>>>> 	To be purely contribution driven
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The enlisted editors of the first document (Julien and Oscar) have
> >>>>>been making  progress and we expect that they will publish a draft
> >>>>>soon.  This draft will be a  starting point for discussion and
> >>>>>contribution/co-authorship, rather than  anything near completion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's our hope that the document will be a sufficient foundation
> >>>>>for work on  Document 2 to start.  Keep in mind that all documents
> >>>>>will be based on  contributions brought to / discussed by the WG.
> >>>>>To be clear, and to respond to  some off-list e-mail, there is no
> >>>>>limitation on discussion, drafts or  presentations at the next
> >>>>>meeting on this or any related topic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Deborah and Lou
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> CCAMP mailing list
> >>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>CCAMP mailing list
> >>>[e-mail]
> >>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>CCAMP mailing list
> >>[e-mail]
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >CCAMP mailing list
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
>