Re: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-gbb-ccamp-otn-path-computation-yang-02

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

I do not have a problem with the WG doing this work but think that the approach is going to confuse and mislead.

The content of this started life elsewhere, under a different name, and I can see nothing in the I-D or in the datatracker to record this history.  I have seen ADs fail to understand that there has been a name change and go off on the wrong track as a result.

I think that both the otn and the optical I-D need statements in them about this history.

I think also that this is one of those rare cases when changing the name on adoption would be a good thing, not so much for this I-D as for draft-gbb-optical-path-computation-yang which is materially different from its precursor.

Tom Petch

________________________________________
From: CCAMP <[e-mail]> on behalf of Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli=[e-mail]>
Sent: 21 September 2022 13:39
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [CCAMP] WG adoption poll on draft-gbb-ccamp-otn-path-computation-yang-02

CCAMP,

Thanks to the prompt replies to the IPR polling we can start the WG adoption process of the YANG path computation drafts.

This starts a 2 weeks working group adoption call on draft-gbb-ccamp-OTN-path-computation-yang-02
The last call ends on Wednesday October 5th. Please send you comments to the CCAMP mailing list.

All the IPR declarations from authors and contributors have been collected and can be found in the history of the document: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gbb-ccamp-otn-path-computation-yang/history/
Please note that no IPR was disclosed against this draft.




Thanks

Daniele & Fatai