RE: [PWE3] PW Redundancy to WG drafts?

[Dave McDysan <[e-mail]>]

This approach works for me. Just to be clear, the
draft-muley-pwe3-redundancy-02.txt is the framework that contains scenarios
(and "requirements" to meet the PWE3 charter objective).

A separate requirements document is not necessary.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: KOMPELLA Vach [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:41 AM
> To: Dave McDysan; AISSAOUI Mustapha; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [PWE3] PW Redundancy to WG drafts?
> 
> Let me suggest a direction that is in line with what Dave is 
> suggesting
> - the drafts move to WG status, but  we will further amplify 
> draft-muley-pwe3-redundancy as the framework, with additional 
> scenarios that Dave has in mind.
> 
> I have no problem with that.
> 
> -Vach  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave McDysan [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 8:12 AM
> > To: AISSAOUI Mustapha; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: 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:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 10:56 AM
> > > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > 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:[e-mail]]
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 7:00 AM
> > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > 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
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > pwe3 mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 




_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3