A few clarifications are due. First the debate is between NTIP and LMP-WDM. The debate is NOT between NTIP and LMP. Secondly, people interested in the subject have agreed on a set of requirements for that interface. The requirements have been presented at the last OIF, and are being discussed at an ITU meeting this week. I think Andre have already submitted a draft to IETF on those requirements (or he is in the process of doing so).
What I don't understand is why NTIP and LMP-WDM debate has been brought into this discussion? It seems to me that this discussion is related to setting WG charter, and to what extent certain items fit or don't fit into a charter, or IETF in general. It is a wider discussion than just a debate between two proposals.
Regards;
Osama.
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Dubuc [mailto:martin.dubuc@edgeflow.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 2:47 PM
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 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
Bert,
Looking back at the minutes, there seems to have been quite a debate during
the CCAMP session between LMP and NTIP proponents. I do not know how we move
forward though. The debate has not been happening on the mailing list. Even
though Andre has asked a question to NTIP authors to stir the debate to the
mailing, no response has come back. Otherwise, I have only seen some
discussions on LMP-WDM vs. funiculus.
What should be the next step to get LMP on the CCAMP WG charter?
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 2:01 PM
To: ccamp-wg; Thomas D. Nadeau; Martin Dubuc
Cc: Scott Bradner; Sudheer Dharanikota (E-mail); Jonathan Lang (E-mail);
Evan McGinnis (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Proposed Addition to CCAMP Charter
Importance: High
Inline
> ----------
> From: Martin Dubuc[SMTP:martin.dubuc@edgeflow.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 6:45 PM
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 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
>
> 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?
Nope no plans for that... but I believe I did see in some WG minutes that
your WG chairs were considering to merge the LMP and NTIP proposals.
I think it mentioned that requirements would be written down first... and
then one would see what the next steps would be... I would need to dig in
to archives to find what the exact statement was.
In any event, we wanted all I-Ds, also those that were already WG I-Ds
to send in a summary. The WG chairs are the first to assess that input.
as soon as we hear from them, we'll know more.
Bert
> 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
> >
> >
>