Re: WG dcoument status

[Stephen Trowbridge <[e-mail]>]

Kireeti,
Regarding the WG last call on the documents:
        draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-05.txt
        draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt
Please note that there is a communication statement from ITU-T Q.14/15
which can be found at: http://www.ietf.org/IESG/LIAISON/ITU-OIF.html
which is relevant to these drafts. In particular, this statement gives
four examples of requirements from ITU-T Recommendations G.807/Y.1302,
G.8080/Y.1304 and G.7713/Y.1704 which are not met by the current versions
of the drafts.

I am aware that it may not be the goal of everyone that these drafts
meet all of these requirements in the first version. But I think it is
our long term goal that these protocols and the ITU-T requirements
converge to the same solution.

In light of the communication statement, can we have some discussion
about the way forward toward this goal? Some possible approaches are:
- It seems for the moment, WG last call has not completed on another
  of 4 drafts that are proposed to advance as a set. While we are
  working to resolve the issues with: draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt,
  is it possible to also address the requirements gaps in these other
  two drafts?
- If these two drafts are advanced as is to a proposed standard RFC, can
  the requirement gaps be addressed with one or more new documents which
  provide only additions, without obsoleting the original RFC?
- If not, I presume we look forward to some new documents on ASON compliant
  GMPLS which, when advanced, would obsolete the original RFCs.

Regards,
Steve

Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> 
> Here's a status update.
> 
> The signaling drafts:
>         draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-05.txt
>         draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt
>         draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
> have finished WG Last Call, and will be sent on to IETF Last Call.
> They are on the track for Proposed Standard.
> 
> Bert Wijnen (AD) has suggested that there should be an implementation
> statement before these move on to IETF Last Call; the WG chairs and
> draft editors agreed.  One note: the SDH/SONET label issue must be put
> to rest before the SDH/SONET draft can move forward.  All other issues
> are now closed.
> 
> The LMP draft:
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-02.txt
> has gone through one round of WG Last Call comments and, once a
> new version has been produced incorporating these comments, will
> go through a final WG Last Call.  This is also targeted as a
> Proposed Standard.
> 
> The following draft, a companion to the above LMP document, is
> also targeted at Proposed Standard, and is still being worked on:
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-00.txt
> 
> The routing drafts:
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-02.txt
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-04.txt
> are awaiting WG consensus for going into WG Last Call.  These
> are also targeted for Proposed Standard.  (Note that the ISIS
> draft is owned by the ISIS WG.)
> 
> The following drafts are Informational:
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-01.txt
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt
> They are awaiting final touches from the editor before they
> progress.
> 
> The following two documents are also being worked on:
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-oli-reqts-00.txt
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-00.txt
> The first is an Informational document; the second is aimed
> at Proposed Standard.
> 
> The MIBs are being reworked in response to comments from the AD.
> When the new versions are ready, the WG will then be asked for
> consensus to make them WG docs.
> 
> Kireeti.