Re: [CCAMP] Pump-priming UNI/PCE/ENNI/MLN/... discussion

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Wed, 30 October 2013 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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 9E1C411E8145 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 drutt2ncMByd for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A9EE21E8143 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 16:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9UNihA3019519; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 23:44:43 GMT
Received: from 950129200 ([213.27.245.161]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9UNigEG019513 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 23:44:43 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: 'CCAMP WG' <ccamp@ietf.org>
References: <0e7601cecf6d$1ec53a70$5c4faf50$@olddog.co.uk> <0e7f01cecf6f$fb2ad1d0$f1807570$@olddog.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <0e7f01cecf6f$fb2ad1d0$f1807570$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 23:44:41 -0000
Message-ID: <202b01ced5ca$01443380$03cc9a80$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKmPSb+jhFSzpUJjjc40ISq725v3wHombQimE/UxKA=
Content-Language: en-gb
Cc: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Pump-priming UNI/PCE/ENNI/MLN/... discussion
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
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: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 23:45:09 -0000

...or, if you prefer, keep absolutely silent :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 22 October 2013 22:45
> To: 'CCAMP WG'
> Cc: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Pump-priming UNI/PCE/ENNI/MLN/... discussion
> 
> Sorry!
> 
> Lou quite correctly points out that I should say...
> 
> This is not your AD directing how business in the WG should be done, nor at
what
> outcome the WG should arrive with consensus.
> 
> I am just being a humble co-author on a document that is not even a WG
> document.
> 
> If you all want to tell me I am mad or don't understand networks, that will
not
> only be your right, but will be quite refreshing. If you have other ideas
about
> how to arrange the discussion, go right ahead and tell me I am wrong or that
you
> prefer to do it different.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ccamp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Adrian Farrel
> > Sent: 22 October 2013 22:25
> > To: 'CCAMP WG'
> > Cc: draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange@tools.ietf.org
> > Subject: [CCAMP] Pump-priming UNI/PCE/ENNI/MLN/... discussion
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Now that the draft agenda is out for CCAMP in Vancouver it is worth stirring
> up
> > a little discussion to see whether we can arrive in British Columbia with
some
> > things ironed out and some ideas we want to dig into deeper.
> >
> > A bunch of us have been working on a draft to summarise the problems and
> > propose
> > an architecture. See the latest version at
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-02
> >
> > It might be helpful to break the discussion into consideration of the
problem
> > statement first. Do we have any disagreement about the scope, the type of
> > network we need to solve, and the functions we need to deliver.  That should
> > take you up to the end of Section 3.
> >
> > Then, as a separate discussion, perhaps we can get into the architecture.
From
> a
> > broad high level, does it do what we want/need? Yes, there are some wrinkles
> > and
> > nits to be sorted out in the details.  That should cover section 5.
> >
> > Finally, can we use the architecture to do useful things. That will be
> sections
> > 7 and (oops) 8.
> >
> > Really looking forward to hearing people's opinions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CCAMP mailing list
> > CCAMP@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp