[GSMP] IETF58 and other issues

[Avri Doria <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

While there has been a bit more traffic on the list and the work seems 
to be moving forward, I am still not sure whether there is enough 
activity at the moment to warrant a WG meeting in Minneapolis.

I would like to hear, on the list,  from anyone who has an issue that 
they feel should be discussed at the meeting.  I would also like to 
hear from anyone who is submitting a draft and feels the need to 
discuss it in the face to face forum.

I will be submitting an update to the base draft later today or 
tomorrow that includes fixes to the issues that Jay brought up in his 
message.  Basically I fixed the typos and added the extension block to 
the configuration message.   I also made some changes to the capability 
set block. QAs the addition of the general extension block there did 
not seem to work as well as it should i made the extension more 
specific to the capability set functionality.   I don't expect anyone 
had tried to use it yet since they would have screamed, figuratively, 
at me if they had.  As usual, i will be looking for comments and issues 
once it comes out.

Finally, Kenneth and I are working on a rework of our schedule.  We 
have, obviously missed our remaining milestones by a long way.  One of 
the ideas we have had is to break the major milestone:

> Dec 02
>   
> Submit GSMPv3 extensions to include control of switches  supporting 
> optical, TDM and other CCAMP features and any  updates of the base 
> spec for Proposed Standard

Into 3 milestones:

- submit rewritten base and packet specification  to the IESG for PS 
consideration
- submit optical spec   to the IESG for PS consideration
- submit tdm spec   to the IESG for PS consideration

the reason for subdividing them are:

-the work of dividing up the spec as we have done was not planned when 
the milestone where first written, it was the result of looking at the 
effect of adding all of the TDM and Optical content to RFC 3292 and 
realizing that it would be too cumbersome and insufficiently versatile. 
  It has also taken more effort then was originally thought as the 
packet and base were so intimately intertwined in the original.
-the base and packet specs together essentially reproduce the 
functionality of current RFC 3292 and are, in my estimation, the 
closest to being done.  With a little bit of focus, they could be ready 
for WG last call before IETF59.   Additionally the current MIB, 
RFC3295, covers this functionality and should need little or no 
revision.
-the optical spec and the tdm spec are individual documents and each 
requires a supporting MIB.  While the optical spec is in progress, 
neither the TDM spec nor the MIBS are as of yet.  So reasonable 
schedules for these need to be worked out.

Opinions?  discussion?

thanks

a.

_______________________________________________
GSMP mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gsmp