RE: Proposed Addition to CCAMP Charter

[Martin Dubuc <martin.dubuc@edgeflow.com>]

Bert,

Can you tell us when you expect to complete evaluation of all I-D summaries?
Is it a matter of days, weeks, months?

Who decides whether LMP should be a CCAMP WG charter item? I am quite a bit
surprised that someone is considering putting G-MPLS and LMP in different
WGs. Is there a rationale for this?

Regards,

Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:58 AM
To: ccamp-wg; Thomas D. Nadeau
Cc: Scott Bradner; Sudheer Dharanikota (E-mail); Jonathan Lang (E-mail);
Evan McGinnis (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Proposed Addition to CCAMP Charter
Importance: High


Your WG chairs with the ADs and TAs are evaluating all the I-D summaries
that have been submitted with CCAMP as the target WG.
Once we have gone through those, we will also address the work item
of an LMP MIB (that is if LMP is still also a WG charter item by then).

Bert

> ----------
> From: 	Thomas D. Nadeau[SMTP:tnadeau@cisco.com]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, June 05, 2001 5:08 PM
> To: 	ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Cc: 	bwijnen@lucent.com; Scott Bradner; Sudheer Dharanikota (E-mail);
> Jonathan Lang (E-mail); Evan McGinnis (E-mail)
> Subject: 	Proposed Addition to CCAMP Charter
> 
> 
> 	Hello,
> 
> 	It has been brought to my attention recently
> that despite the WG voting to adopt the LMP-MIB
> during the Minneapolis meeting, that the adoption of
> this document is not possible because there is no mention
> of network management in the CCAMP WG charter. Therefore
> I propose that since the features we are working
> on in the WG are not very useful unless they are
> manageable, that where appropriate,
> marriageability (or at least SNMP MIBs) of things
> developed in CCAMP be added to the charter.
> 
> 	--Tom
> 
>