IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Polling for new WG IDs

Wataru Imajuku <imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp> Wed, 06 December 2006 02:08 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrmCZ-0002V8-Kj for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:08:03 -0500
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GrmCM-0001nS-Et for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:08:03 -0500
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Grm2l-0006t7-Eu for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:57:55 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.1.7
Received: from [129.60.39.102] (helo=tama5.ecl.ntt.co.jp) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp>) id 1Grm2S-0006s7-5z for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 01:57:49 +0000
Received: from mfs34.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (mfs34.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.114]) by tama5.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kB61vW7V009556 for <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:57:33 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mfs34.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mfs34.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E9E20AE2E for <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:57:32 +0900 (JST)
Received: from nttmail3.ecl.ntt.co.jp (nttmail3.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.39.100]) by mfs34.rdh.ecl.ntt.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BD0720AE29 for <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:57:32 +0900 (JST)
Received: from dmailsv1.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp (dmailsv1.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp [129.60.53.14]) by nttmail3.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kB61vVJF008540 for <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:57:31 +0900 (JST)
Received: from mailsv04.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp by dmailsv1.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/dmailsv-1.6) with ESMTP id kB61vUPv006893 for <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:57:30 +0900 (JST)
Received: from localhost by mailsv04.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp (8.13.8/Lab-1.6) with ESMTP id kB61vTBh023025 for <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:57:30 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20061206103008.05f8a3e8@mailsv4.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp>
X-Sender: wi002@mailsv4.y.ecl.ntt.co.jp
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J-Jr3
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:58:01 +0900
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
From: Wataru Imajuku <imajuku.wataru@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Polling for new WG IDs
In-Reply-To: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0D36F9E9@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd .att.com>
References: <449B2580D802A443A923DABF3EAB82AF0D36F9E9@OCCLUST04EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352

Hi, All


>1. 
><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-04.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-caviglia-ccamp-pc-and-sc-reqs-04.txt

  Yes. This is real issue if operators wants to shift their operation to 
GMPLS controlled networks without disruption of services. It is preferable 
to have this choice for network operators.

  Yes.
>
>2. 
><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-02.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interwork-reqts-02.txt

Yes

>3. 
><http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-takeda-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-01.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-takeda-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-analysis-01.txt

  Yes. This draft is now handling inter-domain MPLS/GMPLS E2E recovery and 
siscussed following to WG charter.

  Also, I have to comment on 
draft-imajuku-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-req-01.txt which
came from same organization (NTT) form Takeda draft.
  Draft-imajuku-ccamp-inter-domain-recovery-req-01.txt is handling 
interdomain GMPLS based
  non-E2E recovery. This draft does not include requirement for MPLS. This 
is the reason NTT team did not migrated the requirements described in this 
draft to Takeda draft.
  But, I hope this draft would be charter issue after next re-charter phase.
  I'm happy if we could share our thought with all CCAMPers.

Best Regards
Wataru

-------------------------------------
Wataru Imajuku@NTT Network Innovation Labs
TEL: +81-46-859-4315
FAX: +81-468-59-5541

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email