Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg
"Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com> Fri, 29 August 2014 16:31 UTC
Return-Path: <zali@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CDCD1A0669 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:31:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70PkcLv2ebCD for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11F6E1A064C for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:31:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7165; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1409329891; x=1410539491; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=COA+YYTsNFcPrFGRabF4UH8ixk9op47CuA7V0mwd/AQ=; b=BtlYDMRUMfdRZXYDmMkn9VpBcRZqeD+AY4MTejG8vOEgHWyjA2TGncQI Irsi7gQlPrc+VQ0UcRw3ylsN2xJkWcsVJv5Q6Anr4YMl1bOT4ikiCgXcn msEYxX1oGDqWd0Y0MWIE7WHE4+wXlP2kC0TNm/HcDRV0n4p1hOZp+48EC Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AikFAHyqAFStJA2K/2dsb2JhbABbgw1TVwTHZAyHSgGBERZ3hAMBAQECAQEBAQFoAwsFBwYBCA4DAwECAVULHQgCBA4FCYgxCA28NBeOahEBUAcGhEYFkTGELoFvhQ6BW5NDg2BsAYEOOYEHAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,425,1406592000"; d="scan'208";a="73467929"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2014 16:31:30 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com [173.36.12.77]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7TGVTNa021448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:31:29 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.204]) by xhc-aln-x03.cisco.com ([173.36.12.77]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:31:29 -0500
From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <zali@cisco.com>
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Thread-Topic: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg
Thread-Index: AQHPqBt/Uetlrac2z0WF/9LgoLXU+JuyhugAgAcHNYCALoIRgA==
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:31:29 +0000
Message-ID: <D0262330.C840F%zali@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53D970FF.6040206@labn.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.3.120616
x-originating-ip: [10.86.241.119]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-ID: <703DF9C418C75E4EAC5FD2F84C34FF02@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/x8ATFm0t7f1C3ymF_tN4hkZX8XM
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:31:33 -0000
Hi Lou: Many thanks for your detailed comments and offline review. Much appreciated. Based on the feedback. I have modified both documents as follows: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry-02.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type- g709v3-05.txt Dear Chairs and the WG: These are very slim documents to get code points for ODU1e, ODU3e1, and ODU3e2. We believe we have addressed all comments received from the WG. There was also a pool on this work at IETF89. Copy and pasting the from minutes (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-ccamp): > 29 13:15 5 Title: RSVP-TE extension for additional >signal types in G.709 OTN >Draft: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-0 >1 >Presenter: Zafar Ali, >http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/89/slides/slides-89-ccamp-29.pdf <snip> [poll] Is there interest in this work? [a reasonable number] Given this, we believe there is support from the WG in this work to start adoption poll. Any comments and a follow-up adoption poll will be greatly appreciated. Thanks Regards ... Zafar -----Original Message----- From: "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 6:26 PM To: zali <zali@cisco.com> Cc: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg >Hi Zafar, > Considering you weren't at the meeting you got close to the >discussed actions. From the raw minutes: > >> Lou: I suspect you mean "Standards Action" rather than "Unassigned" >> Lou: Any comments from our AD - expect there are two areas where he >> may comment >> Adrian: The Experimental range looks large, also perhaps "Expert >> Reivew" is better than "Experimental" >> Adrian: the G.Supp43 values should be under Expert Review rather >> than Experimental, as they're going to be around for too long to be >> really experimental >> Lou: Agreed, not sure why we (AD&Chair) focused on Experimental at >> the last meeting, but Expert Reviews is clearly a better choice. >> Authors, please make the change to allow for Expert review, consider >> shrinking the experimental range and remove the private range. The >> document should indicate that the expert (for the expert review) will >> be appointed by the CCAMP WG chairs. >> >> Lou: The prior document should also request "Expert Review" values. > >So looking at the documents I think you have some actions to do before >we can poll for adoption. Also, strictly speaking you no longer need to >change the registry values, but rather just the registry assignment >policy. This is all I'd personally recommend to do, but if you want to >both change the registry policy and add an experimental range, this is >your prerogative. To fix *just* the assignment problem (and keep things >simple), I think you can do the following to >draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry: > > 2. IANA Considerations > > IANA maintains the an "OTN Signal Type" subregistry to the >"Generalized Multi-Protocol > Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry. The registry >currently is defined > to use the Standards Action registration policy as defined by >[RFC5226]. This document > directs that both Standards Action and Specification Required >policies, as defined in > [RFC5226], be applied to this subregistry. When needed, the >Designated Expert shall be > identified by a CCAMP WG chair or, in the case the group is no >longer active, by the IESG. > >and > > Update the intro and abstract text to be aligned with this text. > >For draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 > >- I think trying to maintain alignment with the text of >draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry > provides no value, adds unnecessary dependent details, and should be >dropped from the > document. (Or do the extra work of updating it to match the changes >and then rev this > document every time the other changes.) > >- You no longer need to describe the range or suggest specific values. > >Unless I missed something, I believe that's it. > >Lou > >On 7/26/2014 10:59 AM, Zafar Ali (zali) wrote: >> Hi Lou, Deborah, Adrian and the WG: >> >> The following two documents listed in the email has been updated based >>on >> the comments received from Chairs, ADs and the WG. Pointer to the latest >> version of the drafts are provided. >> >> 17 - draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry ===> >> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subre >>gi >> stry-01.txt >> 18 - draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 ===> >> >>http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3-03 >>.t >> xt >> >> >> These are very slim documents to get code points for ODU1e, ODU3e1, and >> ODU3e2. We believe there is support from the WG in this work to start >> adoption poll. >> >> Any comments and a follow-up adoption poll will be greatly appreciated. >> >> Thanks >> >> Regards Š Zafar >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "lberger@labn.net" <lberger@labn.net> >> Date: Friday, July 25, 2014 11:17 AM >> To: "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org> >> Subject: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg >> >>> All, >>> As described in yesterday's routing area meeting, see >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/slides/slides-90-rtgarea-3.ppt, our >>> ADs have initiated some changes that will impact CCAMP. As presented, >>> technology specific work will remain in ccamp. The other details of >>> these changes will be flushed out as part of the forthcoming charter >>> drafting / revising. >>> >>> As our AD's have stated, it is important that these changes do not stop >>> us from making progress. In this week's meetings we discussed actions >>> related to a number of individual drafts that we don't expect to be >>> impacted by the changes. In particular, we discussed planned updates, >>> and subsequent adoption polls, of the following drafts: >>> >>>> 11 - draft-martinelli-ccamp-wson-iv-info >>>> 12 - draft-dharinigert-ccamp-g-698-2-lmp >>>> 13 - draft-galikunze-ccamp-g-698-2-snmp-mib >>>> 17 - draft-ali-ccamp-otn-signal-type-subregistry >>>> 18 - draft-ali-ccamp-additional-signal-type-g709v3 >>> Please do your updates as discussed and we should be able to poll these >>> documents, as planned. (Hopefully in time to allow for the discussed >>> liaison to ITU-T.) >>> >>> Importantly, work on WG drafts should also continue as >>>discussed/planned. >>> >>> We hope that this addresses the questions we received offline. If you >>> still have questions, please feel free to send them to the list -- or >>> privately if you prefer. >>> >>> Deborah and Lou >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CCAMP mailing list >>> CCAMP@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp >> >
- [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg Zafar Ali (zali)
- Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg Lou Berger
- Re: [CCAMP] Follow up to routing area reorg Zafar Ali (zali)
- [CCAMP] Request for comments and adoption for dra… Zafar Ali (zali)