RE: IETF 55 - CCAMP Minutes

[Bala Rajagopalan <BRaja@tellium.com>]

Hello,

The P-UNI IETF draft submission was mentioned
and briefly discussed in the last (November) OIF
meeting.

The OIF position has been that the
ongoing E-NNI work subsumes the P-UNI functionality.
Hence, the P-UNI has not been taken up as a separate
work item.

Regards,

Bala

P.S: Without attributing any motive to Yuanguang's mail,
I agree with Kireeti's point (c). If there are technical
issues here, specifically those that relate to 
the inconsistencies in standards that Mark
alludes to, or the applications of different
models (e.g., P-UNI, UNI, E-NNI), we can discuss them. 
 



-----Original Message-----
From: Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com [mailto:Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 9:24 AM
To: xuyg@lucent.com
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: IETF 55 - CCAMP Minutes


In this case, I don't know what happened at the OIF.  Perhaps one of the 
primary OIF players speak up with the information.

Mark Loyd Jones
Sprint
Technology Planning & Integration
913-794-2139
 

-----Original Message-----
From: xuyg [mailto:xuyg@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:11 AM
To: Mark.Jones
Cc: ccamp
Subject: Re: IETF 55 - CCAMP Minutes


Mark,

> I normally just monitor the CCAMP list, but this line of discussion
> concerns me. 

Me too, for these days.

Your points are well taken even I have no idea where they come from. 
Whatever,
would an objective summary of what happened in OIF help us to jump start 
the
discussion here? I don't want to miss valid reasons why OIF drop the 
idea, also
I wouldn't take them for granted.

You seem to know what happened, whould you please share with us so we 
can get
some real things done quickly?


Thanks,

Yangguang