GMPLS implementation report

["Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>]

Hi All,

>> This report is to be prepared by the WG (chairs). And it needs to be sent
>> to iesg-secretary who will put it online on the IETF webpages, so that
>> during IETF Last Call people can actually look at the reports.
>
>Okay.  I'll get to work on it.

My humble two pennies on this one:

a. there was last year in May a (quite large) private interoperability event
organized by the OIF (before the Supercomm demo). GMPLS was tested there. I
guess that the IETF could ask the help of the OIF for such an implementation
report. Some feedback from this interop event was included in current GMPLS
drafts.

b. there will be in April a GMPLS interop event based on the latest GMPLS
drafts (at the UNH I think). We could suggest them to give us the feedback
that we need in the form of an ID.

Of course this doesn't prevent any manufacturers to test together in private
(already done by many) and to report about the results.

Kind regards,

Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 5:09 PM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG dcoument status



On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

> To be precise, the WG chairs will ask AD to consider the docs for PS
> (Proposed Standard). AD then reviews and if happy asks iesg-secretary
> to issue a 2 week IETF Last Call. After that IETF wide Last Call 
> finishes, then, depending on comments if any, AD can put the documents
> on the IESG agenda for final discussion/approval. 

Thanks for the clarification and summary of the process.

> This report is to be prepared by the WG (chairs). And it needs to be sent
> to iesg-secretary who will put it online on the IETF webpages, so that
> during IETF Last Call people can actually look at the reports.

Okay.  I'll get to work on it.

> Please also not that some people worred (back at SLC meeting) that this
> might delay the docs too much. I would like to remind you that it is now
> 2.5 months later, and I have still not seen any signs of such a report.

Mea culpa.  However, I am waiting for implementations based on the
latest versions.

> So... this means that WG Last Call is NOT finished on that one document.
> And I assume you want to process the whole set of 4 documents from above
> as one set. Is that a correct assumption?

Yes, that is preferred.

> There is also the one informational document that got split off in from
> this set. Is that ready and does it have WG consensus to be published
> as Informational RFC?

That is correct.  I'll send out a call for consensus on that.

> Will you pass that along with the set above too?

I'll ask the authors/editor.  It would be ready for publication
much sooner, but may not make sense to publish it independently.
However, it would be good to get the WG sense on this now.

Kireeti.