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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>