Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 19 August 2013 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B5511E82EB for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WqCutw9V3x5z for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:35:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from oproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (oproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.54.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 026A411E80EF for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 13:35:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23756 invoked by uid 0); 19 Aug 2013 20:35:25 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO box313.bluehost.com) (69.89.31.113) by oproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2013 20:35:25 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=xQnKZcWzYb5uVUT4RbLqZk8GwNiOHRbV8mT63Gx7DgQ=; b=0Jrgq6C+cudNVGNvcCvTxyiP2RU4VzI5H1zfc2cuhrYht0O3p6hLdXXxMDeZ8Axk9UG1mDL6nWoS869QVqShsV90DaSFZXme195XomLd3cW/jKVlBugipJ+jRTyUwWqm;
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]:56554 helo=[127.0.0.1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1VBWAe-0002oD-Pt; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:35:24 -0600
Message-ID: <5212818C.8030409@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:35:24 -0400
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, 'Daniele Ceccarelli' <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>, draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model@tools.ietf.org
References: <031c01ce8b87$45b79cb0$d126d610$@olddog.co.uk> <4A1562797D64E44993C5CBF38CF1BE48126BF3@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se> <51F94497.8010402@labn.net> <044501ce9c3d$48007250$d80156f0$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <044501ce9c3d$48007250$d80156f0$@olddog.co.uk>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 69.89.31.113 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Cc: ccamp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-g709-info-model
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:35:54 -0000

Adrian,

I suspect that we've been hit by some post-IETF vacationing.

Daniele, Authors,

Any additional thoughts on this one remaining open issue?

Thanks,
Lou

On 8/18/2013 2:03 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
>>> At the end of the intro we added the following sentence:
>>> "  As far as it concerns routing, analogous considerations apply to IS-IS
>>>   [RFC5307] but in the following only a gap analysis with respect to OSPF-TE
> is
>>> provided."
>>>
>>
>> Given that the analysis for 5307 is pretty similar to 4203, I think you
>> should take a pass at including it as well.  I'm happy to
>> review/contribute as needed.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Lou (chair & doc shepherd)
> 
> Was there any further progress on this?
> 
> I see that the current revision addresses all other points. The note added to
> excuse mentioning IS-IS is a bit skinny, and I would not like to bet money on
> you having actually done the analysis to support adding it :-)
> 
> It may be the case that only a small proportion of CCAMP is interested in IS-IS,
> and it may be the case that the intersection of those people with those
> interested in OTN is vanishingly small. If that is the case (I guess Lou can
> find out) we should excuse IS-IS in a more open and blatant way while soliciting
> and offering to help work on IS-IS for OTN.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> 
> 
> 
>