RE: draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec to WG status?

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Folks,

It would be useful for the draft to state how it fits into the CCAMP
WG, and how it relates to the charter.

One of my concerns is that exposing alarm information is something
that the providers may _not_ want. Moreover, there are already likely
to be other methods by which a provider coordinates alarm information
through their network (and layers), without having it be communicated 
explicitly via signaling.

Some clarification on these points would be useful. Until such time,
I would prefer to hold off on it being brought under the wing of the WG.

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 4:21 AM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec to WG status?
> 
> 
> In Seoul we ran out of time before we could discuss this draft.
> 
> However, the draft is pretty stable, and it is the opinion of the 
> authors that this should
> be brought under the wing of the WG.
> 
> Can you please send your opinions to the list or to the chairs direct.
> 
> Silence (as usual) will be interpreted as you saying nothing.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm
> -spec-01.txt
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>