Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01

Daniele Ceccarelli <> Wed, 03 April 2019 12:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18B11200EC for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 05:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EB6F4za_K_lK for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 05:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07335120089 for <>; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 05:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=LgAHZahgZRdDGkna95AOxRAA9fyYU+WCP8eIQE9pKbI=; b=fWt8Tpm2bCIHcOlIOe2Z3V+OUPH+eGYnK9YOpfBf+p16Ref05bzXvyKIjf/lGHb3EZ3/spvCaGE1/2wdCYpV+wErrQMMh3UkkpYUgeciNnpRR+5PE37Ah2LNDFtUUiPdfNZWAZWd4SyZUNSnVFFkJ3CZB1Hjg6RaqoKtX4WuS6o=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1771.12; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:04:02 +0000
Received: from ([fe80::1152:d74:3cb2:5537]) by ([fe80::1152:d74:3cb2:5537%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1771.011; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:04:02 +0000
From: Daniele Ceccarelli <>
To: "Beller, Dieter (Nokia - DE/Stuttgart)" <>, tom petch <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01
Thread-Index: AdTokK+vn1DgGsI+TZaZNiPisf8ojgA4YOOgACdsnwAAAQ230A==
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:04:02 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <091501d4e948$a188c800$> <> <014401d4e971$8e2a4c60$> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: it-IT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: []
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d421d2d9-8828-4c7f-67a0-08d6b82c7642
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600139)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(49563074)(7193020); SRVR:VI1PR07MB5567;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: VI1PR07MB5567:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-forefront-prvs: 0996D1900D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(396003)(346002)(376002)(136003)(366004)(199004)(189003)(13464003)(7736002)(6306002)(486006)(74316002)(5660300002)(99286004)(68736007)(81156014)(14454004)(4326008)(8676002)(81166006)(53936002)(2906002)(6246003)(966005)(55016002)(99936001)(93886005)(44832011)(9686003)(478600001)(256004)(446003)(105586002)(296002)(53546011)(305945005)(6506007)(26005)(229853002)(14444005)(106356001)(186003)(66066001)(6436002)(33656002)(52536014)(3846002)(316002)(476003)(6116002)(76176011)(8936002)(71190400001)(25786009)(71200400001)(97736004)(86362001)(7696005)(11346002)(102836004)(110136005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:VI1PR07MB5567;; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: ctHdXVEkphczWAeaUb0r5dAw9B45AU2B+MxZfLWqyoFrPE4hFv+pOswpUw9oNqlxZLAVVRx44SS2moceucdbMwUScRg1h8YN98uuC695zfhFeHXwiS00JfXyhCjRZpGX+wD2bniI4v7uo33NC2zrfdXy0CQBuv4Lb0xoiSo83COVrQ+uP+YR0s15ISKeB8kELAAY2Ogdff/ktDUGpMthg4+6dpqu+C/nMXOx45vTFYuHr+WZECfkGdCBL4+5NqYK4mQNYHgAWuWxUsr1WTxAEtqDHg1AQQQ9OD+MsrUzP1Dy2K3Qhd2fpwMuszQ1BviPCJYl3TQiIhLQNbWQpN6wchWMQf1uRbUrWFFjzvOuYkQpyP3a8Z0/U6ZDTsF8c7eghtzU61CfBA4YWp4Um5wjFwKBDzwJSWsZIDUYgaCCWxA=
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=SHA1; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02C0_01D4EA26.159489E0"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d421d2d9-8828-4c7f-67a0-08d6b82c7642
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Apr 2019 12:04:02.0928 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VI1PR07MB5567
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 12:04:08 -0000

Let me clarify this statement from a process point of view.

Without the liaison the work is blocked and we need a WG document in order
to send a liaison to the ITU.
Since the interest in the work is clear, in order to speed up the process
Fatai and I agreed to call for the adoption of this version of the draft
(IPR poll collection + WG poll can be a long process) and give some time to
the authors to produce some text to be included (and agreed by the WG) in
version -01. That version will be liaised. The actual version of the draft
is not good enough for a liaison.


-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP <> On Behalf Of Beller, Dieter (Nokia -
Sent: den 3 april 2019 13:25
To: tom petch <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on

Hi Tom,

revised text for section 2.3.1 of the current draft and additional
subsections describing how the YANG model relates to the ITU-T data plane
definitions is already in preparation and will be shared with the WG soon.
The plan is to produce a 01-version once the draft will have become a WG
draft. This 01-version will include the revised text. Then, the 01-version
of the WG draft will be liaised to ITU-T SG15 for comment. 
This is what has been agreed at a side meeting in Prague among the
co-authors and folks who were interested in this subject.


On 02.04.2019 18:43, Leeyoung wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> Yes, indeed I agree with you. Our intent is to specify the need for the
liaison statement, the scope, and terminology in the main text (as you
pointed out Section 2.3.1 in the current draft). Our plan is to highlight
this section in the very upfront of the revised draft (perhaps 01 of the WG
> Thanks.
> Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP [] On Behalf Of tom petch
> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 11:34 AM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on 
> draft-lee-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang-01
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
> To: "tom petch" <>
> Cc: <>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 2:53 PM
>> Hi Tom,
>> Though it may be true from a content perspective, any individual 
>> draft has the same administrative status as draft-foo-bar containing 
>> a
> stuffed
>> snails recipe. A formal step is required before liaising to another
> SDO,
>> adoption by a WG is the 1st one.
> Indeed (tasty as stuffed snails are).
> My thinking is that the liaison should be simpler, plain text, rather than
being wrapped as a YANG module, which may or may not encourage readers in
the ITU.  It seems to me that it is Section 2.3.1 that needs a response from
the ITU and that wrapping that up in a YANG module may make that harder to
achieve.  That is what gives me pause.
> Tom Petch
>> Cheers,
>> Julien
>> On 02/04/2019 13:41, tom petch wrote:
>>> I never see much difference between working on an unadopted I-D and
> an
>>> adopted one so see scope for progress - e.g. Normative References -
> even
>>> if it is not adopted at this moment in time..
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list

CCAMP mailing list