Re: WG dcoument status

[Ben Mack-Crane <[e-mail]>]

Kireeti,

Regarding the generalized signaling draft, I submitted
several comments after the last IETF identifying technical
issues involving bandwidth encoding, ethernet LSP encoding type,
notify message, protection info, switching type, and waveband support.
(Message IDs: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, 
<[e-mail]>, and <[e-mail]>)

These have not been addressed.  In several cases I think it is not at
all clear which value of a field would be used in a given situation
or whether a field is required or not.

Without some technical feedback, it is impossible for me to determine
whether there are good reasons to keep the drafts as they are or
whether there are good reasons to change it.  In either case, the text
in the draft seems insufficient to clearly describe an interoperable
standard.

I am not convinced the draft is ready for IETF last call.

Regards,
Ben Mack-Crane

Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> 
> Here's a status update.
> 
> The signaling drafts:
>         draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-05.txt
>         draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt
>         draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-07.txt
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
> have finished WG Last Call, and will be sent on to IETF Last Call.
> They are on the track for Proposed Standard.
> 
> Bert Wijnen (AD) has suggested that there should be an implementation
> statement before these move on to IETF Last Call; the WG chairs and
> draft editors agreed.  One note: the SDH/SONET label issue must be put
> to rest before the SDH/SONET draft can move forward.  All other issues
> are now closed.
> 
> The LMP draft:
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-02.txt
> has gone through one round of WG Last Call comments and, once a
> new version has been produced incorporating these comments, will
> go through a final WG Last Call.  This is also targeted as a
> Proposed Standard.
> 
> The following draft, a companion to the above LMP document, is
> also targeted at Proposed Standard, and is still being worked on:
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-mib-00.txt
> 
> The routing drafts:
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-02.txt
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-04.txt
> are awaiting WG consensus for going into WG Last Call.  These
> are also targeted for Proposed Standard.  (Note that the ISIS
> draft is owned by the ISIS WG.)
> 
> The following drafts are Informational:
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-01.txt
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt
> They are awaiting final touches from the editor before they
> progress.
> 
> The following two documents are also being worked on:
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-oli-reqts-00.txt
>         draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-00.txt
> The first is an Informational document; the second is aimed
> at Proposed Standard.
> 
> The MIBs are being reworked in response to comments from the AD.
> When the new versions are ready, the WG will then be asked for
> consensus to make them WG docs.
> 
> Kireeti.
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged 
and confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the 
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an 
employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

Thank you.
Tellabs
============================================================