RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt

["Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@ciena.com>]

Hi Dimitri,

This is not complicated, "separation" sounds like you take
an existing WG draft text and split some of it off into a
separate document, as was in fact done with the earlier
gmpls signaling documents that you pointed out.

Here, there was basically a new set of text created from
scratch, so it is more akin to a new individual draft
and the text has not been reviewed or endorsed by the WG.


Cheers,

Lyndon


-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
[mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:10 AM
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Bernstein, Greg; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt


hi,

i suggest that you take another look at the document
because it clearly says "In [LMP], a link verification 
procedure is defined whereby Test messages are transmitted 
in-band over the data links.  This is used for data plane 
discovery, Interface_Id exchange (Interface_Ids are used 
in GMPLS signaling, either as port labels [GMPLS-SIG] or 
component link identifiers [BUNDLE], depending on the 
configuration), and physical connectivity verification."

thus complete the sentence by saying that this document
uses a "generic mechanism" the link verification as
defined in [LMP], for (among other) discovery purposes 
and this i-d describes the way to achieve it for sonet/
sdh environments, thus we follow the ad's advices by 
meeting the mailing list comments ...

... by the way an update of the bootstrap document has
been issued addressing the valuable comments we have
received through the ccamp mailing list:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lang-ccamp-lmp-bootstrap-01.txt

the first comment is difficult to understand from the 
technical viewpoint (imho you agree on an assertion this 
does not make this assertion more valid) by the way when 
we split the gmpls signalling into gmpls-sonet-sdh you 
were much less shooting than today - and there the text 
was *really* different - what happened since then ? do i 
have to understand that you would like to build a car w/o 
its wheels (but... this is your *individual* choice)

thanks,
- dimitri.

"Ong, Lyndon" wrote:
> 
> Hi Kireeti,
> 
> What is confusing people is that the new draft is not text
> split off from the original LMP specification but almost
> entirely new text and subject matter, as Zhi points out.
> 
> Also, concerns were expressed on the mailing list that some
> of the functions in LMP were not applicable in SONET/SDH,
> _including_ link verification.  The new draft is basically
> a set of extensions _to_ link verification.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> L. Ong
> Ciena
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:06 AM
> To: Bernstein, Greg
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt
> 
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Bernstein, Greg wrote:
> 
> > This draft seems to contain new material not in LMP.  How can it be
> already
> > considered a working group item for CCAMP?
> 
> draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-01.txt had material that was not already in
> draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-00.txt.  How can it be already considered a working
> group document item for CCAMP?  und so weiter ...  Are you suggesting
> a new process for documents in the IETF, or is it just for documents
> whose name contains the string 'lmp'?
> 
> <chair>
> This draft is a separation of the original LMP draft into two documents,
> as suggested by the primary AD: a *base* document, technology-agnostic,
> and a SONET-SDH specific document.
> 
> The fact that the latter document has new material is in response to
> requests from folks in CCAMP.  Both documents will undergo another WG
> Last Call.
> </chair>
> 
> Kireeti.