RE: [PWE3] PW Redundancy to WG drafts?

The charter states the following:

"Define requirements for and mechanisms to provide protection and
restoration of PWs."

I view draft-muley-pwe3-redundancy-02.txt that describes scenarios as a good
starting point to document requirements, which can be combined with a
framework (if the wg wants to undertake that increased charter scope). 

I support these documents becoming WG drafts so that they can be open to
inputs from the working group. 

As I mentioned in the meeting, I have additional requirements and scenarios
that I would like for the wg to consider.

Thanks,

Dsve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AISSAOUI Mustapha [mailto:Mustapha.Aissaoui@alcatel-lucent.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:56 AM
> To: stbryant@cisco.com; pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] PW Redundancy to WG drafts?
> 
> Stewart,
> I believe all of the requirements we received from service 
> providers and vendors were incorporated into the scenarios 
> described in the framework draft and addressed by the 
> solution draft. In my opinion, this reflects the level of 
> support for moving these two documents to WG status.  
> 
> Having said that, if the WG requires a separate requirements 
> document, we can work on separating them from the framework 
> draft but this should not delay these drafts from progressing 
> as WG documents. 
> 
> Regards,
> Mustapha.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:00 AM
> > To: pwe3@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [PWE3] PW Redundancy to WG drafts?
> > 
> > A considerable number of people have said that they support 
> adoption 
> > of these drafts, but the minutes of the PWE3 meetings say:
> > 
> > 
> >  >Authors requesting to move to WG status  >Dave McDyson: Proposes 
> > requirements be settled first.
> >  >Also requests cross-referencing other drafts, and  >explaining 
> > terminology.
> >  >
> >  >Stewart: asks what alignment is required  >  >Dave McDyson: IEEE 
> > protection, and possibly ITU  >
> >  >Matthew: That is part of requirements draft  >  >Dave 
> McDyson: The 
> > solution seems to rely on correct configuration.
> >  >
> >  >Automatic identification of master and slave would be nice.
> >  >
> >  >Danny: Are you volunteering to help ?
> >  >
> >  >Dave McDyson: yes
> >  >
> >  >Dave says he is happy that Luca is now working on this 
> draft as well  
> > >  >Luca Martini (via Jabber): Hey ! , this is a very different 
> > document  >since the time I made that statement !
> >  >
> >  >Danny: will ask on the list.
> > 
> > I therefore have two questions?
> > 
> > 1) Do we need a requirements draft?
> > 
> > 2) If we need a requirements draft,
> > 2a) Do we proceed with these proposals and sync up the requirements 
> > and solutions drafts on the fly?
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > 2b) Do we get traction on the requirements draft and then 
> verify that 
> > these drafts are suitable solutions?
> > 
> > Stewart
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > pwe3@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3