Re: WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)
Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> Fri, 03 October 2003 14:08 UTC
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:10:10 +0000
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:08:28 -0700
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: Stephen J Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>
cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, iesg@ietf.org, Ronald Bonica <ronald.p.bonica@mci.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)
Message-ID: <20031003065739.R78380@kummer.juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi Steve, On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Stephen J Trowbridge wrote: > I think the remark you point out is a good "catch-all" for these > types of things and should remain, but I suggested the rewording > for a couple of reasons: > - The original sentence wording is clumsy and could be misunderstood: > "Identify requirements for signaling and routing for ASON not currently met ..." > When I see a statement like "Identify requirements for ...", I tend > to think of identifying new requirements, and if it is a new requirement, > of course it is not currently met, but when I get to the end of the > sentence, I understand that what must have really been meant by the > beginning of the sentence must have been: > "Identify WHICH requirements for signaling and routing for ASON ARE not > currently met". I think the addition of the words WHICH and ARE are > the minimum to make sure that the sentence is well constructed and not > misunderstood. The ASON Routing Requirements Design Team charter explicitly states what this means. Isn't that, plus the 'catch-all' good enough? I will add WHICH and ARE -- they do make it clearer. > The reason I thought that mention of ITU-T explicitly in this bullet point > is that ASON requirements come from ITU-T - after all, we are talking > about (not necessarily IP) transport networks, and by making sure that > any such work is always joint with ITU-T, we can avoid the famous > question "What does this have to do with IP?" That's altogether different. I don't think we can (or should) avoid the question, "What does this have to do with IP?" -- that is fundamental to any IETF work. "any such work is always joint with ITU-T" -- it's clear from the DT charter that ASON work will be done jointly with the ITU-T. It's not the case that *any* work on transport networks will be done jointly with the ITU-T, although it would be beneficial to both the ITU-T and the IETF that each keep the other up-to-date with new developments. Kireeti.
- WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Measur… The IESG
- Re: WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Me… Stephen J Trowbridge
- RE: WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Me… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- RE: WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Me… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Me… Stephen J Trowbridge
- Re: WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Me… Kireeti Kompella
- WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Measur… IESG Secretary