IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal

"Naidu, Venkata" <Venkata.Naidu@MARCONI.COM> Tue, 29 October 2002 21:03 UTC

Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA25221 for <ospf-archive@LISTS.IETF.ORG>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:03:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from walnut (209.119.0.61) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <19.00799DFC@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:05:22 -0500
Received: from DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM by DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 356631 for OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:05:22 -0500
Received: from 169.144.68.6 by WALNUT.EASE.LSOFT.COM (SMTPL release 1.0f) with TCP; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:05:21 -0400
Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA02315; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:05:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com (whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12087; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:05:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: by whq-msgrtr-01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <V6SGG8CZ>; Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:05:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Message-ID: <39469E08BD83D411A3D900204840EC55763420@vie-msgusr-01.dc.fore.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:05:14 -0500
Reply-To: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
Sender: Mailing List <OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM>
From: "Naidu, Venkata" <Venkata.Naidu@MARCONI.COM>
Subject: Re: FW: OSPF WG Charter Proposal
Comments: To: Rohit Dube <rohit@xebeo.com>, "Singh, Ajay" <ajays@netplane.com>
Comments: cc: "acee@REDBACK.COM" <acee@REDBACK.COM>
To: OSPF@DISCUSS.MICROSOFT.COM
Precedence: list

Rohit,

-> Acee and I discussed this. I would agree with you. Any OSPF-TE mib is
-> likely to be equally relevant to ISIS. I would prefer to not
-> get into specifying this here - if at all, the TEWG can specify
-> (perhaps they do already) the contents of the TED to be extracted
-> into a MIB.

 Please give consideration - after all are we discussing OSPF WG charter.
 Please talk to TEWG chairs and discuss all the possibilities.

 OSPF-TE is given to OSPF-WG, but OSPF diff extensions (as far as
 I know, Francois is pretty confident with the recent LOM/BC
 related IGPs update). So, coordinate with TEWG chairs, if
 they don't have any agenda related to OSPF-TE MIB and/or OSPF-Diff-TE
 MIBs in their charter, then discuss which is the better WG to have
 such drafts. May be single draft will suffice for all the OSPF TE
 related MIBs (OSPF-TE, OSPF-Diff-TE, OSPF-GMPLS, OSPF-FA LSPs etc).

 As far as I know, TEWG works for requirements and they don't
 have any such charter for protocol related MIBs.

--
Venkata.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email