Moving right along ...

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Despite the energetic subject line, we the WG chairs have been
lax in our duties.  So, here goes:

Lou has submitted the latest versions of the generalized
signaling documents quite some time ago (thanks, Lou):

draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-05.txt
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-06.txt

Also, Eric has posted the SONET/SDH documents (merci, Eric):

draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt

All of these should have addressed the issues raised in the earlier
versions.  Please read the new versions, and send your comments to
the list by Tuesday Oct 23.  At that point, when the final round
of comments have been addressed, these docs will go to IESG Last
Call.  If any one objects to sending these docs to IESG Last Call,
raise your issues now.

I see that the GMPLS architecture document is a CCAMP WG doc, but
the minutes say that we should look for consensus on the list.  So,
if you think this doc *shouldn't* be a WG doc, let us know.  (If we
arrived at a consensus, remind me :-))  If nothing is heard, the doc
will progress to WG Last Call.

The docs draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt and
draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt were under consideration to be
CCAMP WG docs; consensus at the meeting was Yes.  Please let the
list know what your thinking is on these.  (BTW, both these docs
were to have some edits done.  If the authors could do that before
the next IETF, we can try to make more progress then.)

The MIB overview doc was recently posted.  Please read and comment
to the list.

The doc draft-bms-optical-sdhsonet-mpls-control-frmwrk-01.txt
was generally thought to be useful; it will be published as a
CCAMP informational doc.  This begins a two week Last Call on
the doc, ending Tuesday Oct 30.

There was no consensus on whether the GMPLS framework should be
a CCAMP WG doc.  Please indicate your pleasure.

draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-01.txt has been posted.  The thought was
raised that this draft is close to ready for WG Last Call.  Please
review it, and let us know if you disagree.

The OLI requirements doc was broadly accepted.  Please let the
list know if you think this doc should be a WG doc.

It's still open whether we (the IETF) should be working on
LMP-WDM.  I urge the authors to keep on working on the doc, and
keeping it in sync with LMP; however, we will postpone making it
a CCAMP WG doc until the issue is resolved.  Hopefully that will
happen in Salt Lake City.

There was reasonable interest in the tunnel trace requirements
doc.  Let's formalize this: do you think this should be made a
CCAMP WG document?

Summary:

1) Final comments and IESG Last Call readiness for:
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-04.txt
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-05.txt
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-06.txt
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-02.txt
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions-00.txt

2) Should the following documents be CCAMP WG docs?
draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02.txt
draft-fontana-ccamp-gmpls-g709-00.txt
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-00.txt
draft-mannie-ccamp-gmpls-concatenation-conversion-00.txt
draft-many-ccamp-gmpls-framework-00.txt
draft-many-oli-reqts-00.txt

3) Comment on MIB overview.

4) Two week Last Call comments on
draft-bms-optical-sdhsonet-mpls-control-frmwrk-01.txt

5) Last Call readiness of
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-architecture-00.txt
draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-01.txt

Thanks,
Kireeti.