RE: [PWE3] PW Redundancy to WG drafts?

Dave,
sure, let us incorporate your scenarios into the framework document. We
can then evaluate if these can be addressed by capabilities currently
defined the solution draft or not.

Mustapha.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave McDysan [mailto:dave.mcdysan@verizon.com] 
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 11:12 AM
> To: AISSAOUI Mustapha; stbryant@cisco.com; pwe3@ietf.org
> 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: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