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

"Adrian Farrel" <> Tue, 22 October 2013 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EF3F11E8251 for <>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:47:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.583
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K1ch+viB7iwL for <>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0A111E8300 for <>; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 14:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9MLjDPo006918; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:45:13 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r9MLjBq0006900 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:45:12 +0100
From: Adrian Farrel <>
To: 'CCAMP WG' <>
References: <0e7601cecf6d$1ec53a70$5c4faf50$>
In-Reply-To: <0e7601cecf6d$1ec53a70$5c4faf50$>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:45:08 +0100
Message-ID: <0e7f01cecf6f$fb2ad1d0$f1807570$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQKmPSb+jhFSzpUJjjc40ISq725v35hSZNvg
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Pump-priming UNI/PCE/ENNI/MLN/... discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:47:59 -0000


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.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] On Behalf Of
> Adrian Farrel
> Sent: 22 October 2013 22:25
> To: 'CCAMP WG'
> Cc:
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 7 and (oops) 8.
> Really looking forward to hearing people's opinions.
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list