Re: [CCAMP] POLLING on draft-ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-05

[[e-mail]]

Ciao Daniele, hi all,

I believe the way the draft is progressing is fine, which puts me on
option 1. If some holes are identified, I think option 2 is the typical
way to take care of them and I would be ready to support it.
Option 3 feels orthogonal: if it's progressed in parallel, the solution
from the I-D will be able to make use of the results, but I don't want
to bind the specification only to the output of that action.
I don't think what is proposed by the 1st sentence of option 4 is
necessary, and I don't understand how the 2nd sentence sustains the 1st
one...

Cheers,

Julien


On 20/11/2020 16:08, Daniele Ceccarelli wrote:
>
> Hi WG,
>
>  
>
> This is a polling to follow up on the discussion we had during the
> IETF session.
>
> *The polling will be closed on Friday 27^th November.*
>
>  
>
> Please indicate which option (more than one allowed) do you support.
> You can motivate why an option and why not another or share if you are
> aware of existing implementations.
>
>  
>
>   * Option 1: The draft is good as is today.
>   * Option 2: We need to add text specifying the use cases that we
>     want to cover. More precisely identify the cases that are outside
>     the scope of the solution proposed.
>   * Option 3: Contribute to ITU-T to have all the cases covered by
>     application codes.
>   * Option 4: Remove explicit parameters in the organizational-mode
>     because they are considered implicit parameters in the mode. This
>     allows to cover cases where the same mode is used for transceivers
>     that extend (but not limit) the operation range of a mode.
>
>  
>
> Thanks,
>
> Daniele, Fatai.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp